Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ISLAND OF ARRAN PIERS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — PLANNING

South Bank (Layout)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning if he will make available in the Library the proposed layout proposals for the South Bank of the River Thames between County Hall and Waterloo Bridge including the section where the new Government offices are to be situated.

The Minister of Local Government and Planning (Mr. Dalton): The London County Council have not yet submitted any detailed plans to me, but they propose to zone this area for public buildings.

Mr. Dodds: In view of the Minister's reply, would he not agree that it is not unfair to suggest that the South Bank Exhibition cannot be continued into 1952 because of the early development of the site for other projects, and will the right hon. Gentleman bring that information to the attention of the Lord President of the Council?

Mr. Dalton: That request is going a little too wide, but I will mention the matter to him.

Coal Working, Astley

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the undertaking, which he

obtained last autumn from the National Coal Board, that for at least five years there will be no coal working which could cause any damage to Astley Church or Castle; if he is satisfied that the plans submitted by the Board are consistent with that undertaking; and if he will take all steps within his powers to preserve these ancient buildings from injurious subsidence.

Mr. Dalton: The National Coal Board gave me no undertaking. They told me last June that they estimated that their programme would not take them up to the church and castle for five years; they now think that they may be there in two years. The Board are already taking steps to protect the church, and I am considering the question of protecting the castle.

Sir J. Mellor: Did not the right hon. Gentleman write to me on 9th October saying:
The Coal Board have now told me that for five years there will be no coal working which will cause any damage to either of these two buildings"?
If that is not an undertaking, what is?

Mr. Dalton: I do not think we ought to blame the Coal Board for getting on more quickly than they said they would.

Sir J. Mellor: Is the Minister aware that the Coal Board have obtained a faculty to sever the tower of the church from the nave and to put each portion on a separate concrete raft, but are not prepared to take any steps whatever for the protection of the castle?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. I said that I am looking into that matter myself.

Development Charges

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning whether, in view of the revised development charge exemptions shown in pamphlet No. 1233, dated 11th July, 1950, he will refund development charges already paid by people between the passing of the Act and the above amendment where such charges would not now apply.

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. I have no power to make regulations with retrospective effect.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Tender, Worthing

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning why his regional officer has insisted on the reduction of a tender submitted to him by the Worthing Corporation for the erection of nine houses, under Circular Letter 92/46, from £1,364 to £1,296, a reduction of 5 per cent., in view of the fact that approval was granted for five similar houses in December, 1949, at a price of £1,330, and that such a reduction cannot represent the saving on overheads and other costs inherent in the construction of four additional houses.

Mr. Dalton: Because the risk of a rise in prices of materials fell on the corporation in the first case, and on the contractor in the second.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Is the Minister not aware that the bill of quantities has already been agreed between the regional officer and the Corporation, that the specifications have already been cut to the bone, and that any procrastination will incur an increase in the cost of these houses? After all, we must get on with house building.

Mr. Dalton: Nobody is stopping them getting on with it. It is a question of the form of the contract.

Transferred Workers (Accommodation)

Mr. Colegate: asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning whether he will make a statement with regard to the provision of mobile housing which will be required when the expected transfers of labour due to the rearmament programme take place.

Mr. Dalton: I am considering various methods of accommodating any such transfers.

Mr. Colegate: Does not the Minister recognise the extreme urgency of this matter and that great personal hardship was caused previously when the transfer of workers took place at short notice from one town to another?

Mr. Dalton: We will do our best to avoid it.

Demolished Houses

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning why no record of demolished housing accommodation is kept.

Mr. Dalton: For the reason I gave to the hon. Member on 25th January.

Mr. Shepherd: The right hon. Gentleman's conversion to the needs of economy is welcome, but is it not a fact that if these figures are not produced, a misleading impression of the net housing position may be gained?

Mr. Dalton: The hon. Gentleman need not insinuate. He can take my answer.

Building Licences (Transfer)

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning if he is aware that in many districts there is so great a demand for council houses that no private building licences can be granted, whereas in other districts the demand for private building licences is far greater than that for council houses; and whether, in order to provide greater elasticity, he will arrange for regional pools to be set up to permit the interchange of licences between one local authority and another in each region.

Mr. Dalton: My predecessor agreed to a transfer of licences between local authorities and I am continuing this arrangement.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Is the Minister aware that under the present system this transfer reduces the total number of houses that any one local authority can build, and that there are residential districts where the local authority, in order to get one private building licence, has to build four council houses which are not wanted?

Coke-burning Stoves

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning what steps he had taken before he sent out Circulars 7/51 and 4/51 urging the increased use of coke-burning stoves for domestic purposes to ascertain that there was an adequate supply of coke in prospect.

Mr. Dalton: All these stoves will burn well with at least one fuel other than coke.

Sir I. Fraser: Could the right hon. Gentleman write a convincing letter to the Ulverston Urban District Council and other authorities who do not like to advise people to use these stoves or to instal them lest there should be no fuel?

Mr. Dalton: I happen to have a note about the Ulverston District Council in preparation for this supplementary question. I understand that their complaint is that householders are not allowed to have more than one such apparatus.

Mr. Butcher: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate one alternative fuel that will burn in these stoves?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say where any of these fugitive alternative fuels are available?

Mr. Dalton: I could not say until after consultation with my colleagues.

Exchange of Houses

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning whether he is aware of the difficulties placed in the way of mobility of labour through the inability of intending workers to exchange their existing local authority house for another in the area where labour is needed; and whether he is prepared to take steps to overcome the unwillingness of local authorities to sponsor the exchange of houses.

Mr. Dalton: I am wholly in favour of such voluntary exchanges, and am taking the matter up with the local authority associations.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: In regard to the administrative arrangements, does the right hon. Gentleman intend to decide upon a suitable scheme, circularise local authorities and invite them to submit suggestions?

Mr. Dalton: I am in consultation with them, and I will take their advice and will consider the best method of popularising and encouraging these exchanges.

Mr. Hargreaves: Is the Minister aware that certain local authorities are encouraging interchanges of tenancies of council houses? Could he follow on that kind of development?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Durham County Council Employees (Trade Unions)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning whether he has yet been able to ascertain whether the Durham County Council are continuing to require the production of evidence of membership of a professional association or trade union from their present and prospective employees; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is not the Minister aware that, on 26th January, circulars were sent out in this county laying it down that priority of redundancy should be accorded to employees of the school meals service who are not members of the appropriate trade union. Does not that action amount to the operative action of which His Majesty's Government said they would take serious notice?

Mr. Dalton: Ministers are concerned about the action of a local authority only when it appears to endanger services for which the Ministers have responsibility. No such danger has developed in County Durham, where the services are highly efficient.

Structure

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Local Government and Planning if he is aware of the urgent need for a revision in the structure of local government; and if he will now say when the Government intend to make a statement.

Mr. Dalton: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. and gallant Members for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus) and Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott), last Thursday.

Mr. Shepherd: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is unsatisfactory to make these considerable functional changes in local government and at the same time take no steps to bring about changes in his Ministry?

Mr. Dalton: For that reason I suggested last Thursday that the local authority associations should continue to discuss the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Donnington Castle, Newbury

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Works when he proposes to start the preservation of Donnington Castle, Newbury, so that visitors may gain a proper appreciation of this historic monument.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Stokes): Donnington Castle has not yet been transferred to my Ministry but negotiations are proceeding. In view of the urgent need to carry out repairs, I have sought the present owners' consent to carry out works before the deed is completed, and I hope that work will begin as soon as this permission is given.

Gas and Electric Fire Guards

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Works whether he is now prepared to approach the trades concerned with a view to ensuring that all portable gas and electric fires are fitted with suitable guards.

Mr. Stokes: My Department is in touch with those concerned. The next step is the publication of British Standard specifications for the guards. I am informed that the British Standards Institution have this in hand.

Miss Burton: Knowing the Minister's regard for speedy action, might I ask him please to make use of it in this matter, because parents of young children are concerned about these accident guards?

Mr. Stokes: I am most grateful for the hon. Lady's advances in this matter.

Mr. Nabarro: Can the Minister tell the House whether the proposed guards will eliminate the use of steel, which is urgently wanted for other purposes?

Mr. Stokes: Not without notice.

No. 2, Park Street

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Minister of Works how far the premises at 2, Park Street are exempt from all other statutes and the regulations under the Catering Wages Act, as well as from the provisions of the Licensing Acts.

Mr. Stokes: Except in respect of the sale of intoxicating liquor, which is now undertaken by the Crown, the managing

contractors are required to comply with all statutory rules and regulations in force in relation to the running of an hotel.

Sir H. Williams: Why is intoxicating liquor left out of control?

Mr. Stokes: Because I wanted it to be.

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Minister of Works whether at 2, Park Street, Mayfair, he sells alcoholic liquor to all applicants for consumption on, or off, the premises, and during what hours; and what other entertainments are provided for non-residents.

Mr. Stokes: No. 2, Park Street has always been used for small functions of hospitality—by which I mean lunch or dinner or a reception—given by the Government or Government-sponsored persons, and liquor has been supplied at them. In all other cases, the practice is to sell liquor to residents only. Liquor must be consumed on the premises, and the licensing hours for the district are complied with.

Sir J. Mellor: Are guests and residents also supplied at all hours?

Mr. Stokes: Yes, Sir; certainly not at all hours, but very naturally within the licensing hours, and during the performance of their lunch or dinner, or what-ever it may be.

Hon. Members: Performance?

Clive House (Cost)

Mr. John Morrison: asked the Minister of Works what has been the total cost of constructing and equipping Clive House; how far this has exceeded the original estimates; and whether the time taken to erect the building exceeded expectations.

Mr. Stokes: Clive House is leased to my Department at an agreed rent and I cannot give its capital cost. The estimated capital cost of equipping the building as a passport office is £40,000, but the figures of actual cost are not yet available. The building took about six months longer than the original estimate owing partly to the decision to allocate it to the Passport Office who have special requirements.

Houses (Sheet Copper Roofs)

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Works how many houses with sheet copper roofs have been built by his Department in the last 12 months; how many are in course of construction; and whether he consulted the Ministry of Supply before embarking on this method of house construction.

Mr. Stokes: No houses with sheet copper roofs have been built by my Department in the last 12 months, except the four now under construction to which I referred in my reply of 30th January to the hon. Member. These houses were planned over a year ago, and as there were no restrictions on the use of copper at that time, consultation with the Ministry of Supply was then unnecessary.

Mr. Turton: Why was it that these houses were continued at the time when copper was extremely scarce, in the summer and autumn?

Mr. Stokes: I have explained that already. They were put in hand in the first place because of the desire to save timber, and indeed there was also a saving in the overall cost of the houses. Now they have been continued with the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply.

Westminster Hall

Mr. Iain MacLeod: asked the Minister of Works whether, and for what reasons, the Lion and the Unicorn are to remain on the steps in Westminster Hall.

Mr. Stokes: The curtain in the southern arch of Westminster Hall will be removed this month when the removal of the scaffolding from St. Stephen's Porch will be begun. The Lion and the Unicorn will be removed at the same time.

Chequers

Mr. Summers: asked the Minister of Works if he will give consideration to the idea of opening Chequers to the public on specified weekdays this summer during those months in which Parliament may be sitting.

Mr. Stokes: The Trustees of the Chequers Estate, of whom I am one, have considered this suggestion, but have

decided not to open Chequers to the public.

Mr. Summers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer will cause great disappointment to many people in the locality and particularly to the many foreign visitors, of whom it is imagined some may yet come during the course of this summer? Will he look at the matter again?

Mr. Stokes: I cannot promise to do that because it would be misleading. All sorts of complications arise, including the whole question of security, and I am not prepared to recommend that extra money be expended on Chequers.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Would it not be better to leave the matter over for a short time, in view of the impending change of tenancy?

Parliament Square

Sir H. Williams: asked the Minister of Works what is the purpose of the concrete wall now being erected round Parliament Square; and why the statues are being erected so that pedestrians can only see the backs.

Mr. Stokes: The dwarf walls and kerbs which are being erected in Parliament Square are not concrete, but Portland Stone. They are required because of varying levels in the scheme approved by Parliament in 1949. The statues have also been erected in accordance with this scheme, to face the broad paved walk in the new central garden and to face the Houses of Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Polish Miners

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: asked the Minister of Labour how many Polish volunteer miners, who have finished their training, are now employed in the mines in this country; how many are still unemployed; and what is the cost hitherto incurred of maintaining trained Polish miners who are unemployed.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Frederick Lee): Approximately 8,000 Poles are at present employed in the, coal- mining industry. It is over two years


since there was any delay in employing Poles immediately their training was completed. I have no record of the cost incurred by the National Coal Board at that time in maintaining them pending employment after training.

Retired Officers

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a number of retired officers of the three Services, with high technical qualifications, are finding it very difficult to obtain employment on account of their age; and if he will endeavour to utilise the services of these officers in the rearmament programme.

Mr. Lee: The number of such officers registered with my Department is less than 50, and about half of these are at present under consideration for suitable posts. I hope employers will make the greatest possible use of the services of these officers.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: As there may be a number of officers who do not know where to apply, can the Parliamentary Secretary say to which branch or Department they should make application?

Mr. Lee: There is an Appointments Department Advisory Council on which each of the three Services is represented. The Council does its best to look after these ex-officers.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Up to what age are they looked after?

Mr. Lee: Half of these people are already over 55 years of age. We have no maximum. They are represented on the departmental committee and we are trying, along with the Service representatives, to secure employment irrespective of age.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: In view of the appeal made by the Minister of Labour the other day to employers to do their best for these men of a certain age, will the Minister have another shot at it to see whether more can be done? The stories and letters on the subject that we receive are very terrible. Little employment seems to be achieved by these officers.

Mr. Lee: We are most concerned about the incidence of unemployment among older people, and we are taking the advice of both sides of industry. We will do everything in our power to help these men.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Yes, but cannot something be done in the Government's services? The Government appeal to private employers but do not take similar action themselves.

Mr. Lee: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the figures which I gave in a recent Adjournment Debate, he will find that the Government have a very good record indeed.

Bradford

Mr. Craddock: asked the Minister of Labour how many persons are registered as unemployed in the City of Bradford; and what is the number of building operatives unemployed with their respective occupations.

Mr. Lee: As the reply includes a Table of figures, I will circulate it, if I may, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The total number of unemployed persons on the registers of the Bradford employment exchange at 15th January, 1951, was 730. This figure includes the following numbers of men and boys whose last employment was in the building industry:


Occupation.
Number.


Carpenters
4


Bricklayers
2


Plasterer
1


Painters and Decorators
39


Plumber
1


All other occupations in the building industry (mainly labourers)
65



112

Factory Inspectors

Mr. Craddock: asked the Minister of Labour why some firms are informed when a visit of inspection will take place, so enabling tidying up, the proper fencing of machinery and necessary whitewashing.

Mr. Lee: It is not the practice of factory inspectors, except in special circumstances, to give advance notice of


an intended visit. If the hon. Member will let me have the details of any particular case he has in mind, I will have inquiries made.

Territorials

Dr. Barnett Stross: asked the Minister of Labour whether the proposed protection of Class Z Reservists against loss of employment or holidays will be made available also for Territorials.

Mr. Lee: This matter, together with many others arising out of the Prime Minister's statement in the House on 29th January, 1951, is being urgently considered.

Dr. Stross: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the Territorials give not only their 14 or 15 days a year but also one or two nights a week, and that it would be very helpful indeed if they had the same privileges?

Commander Noble: Can the Minister say whether it would be possible to give an answer next week in the Defence debate?

Mr. Lee: I cannot say. I can only repeat that the matter is under most urgent consideration and that a statement will be made as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE

Physically Unfit Persons

Mr. Macdonald: asked the Minister of Labour whether all men and women who are physically unfit for active service will, wherever possible, be given some Civil Defence part-time or full-time job which they will be expected to carry out.

Mr. Lee: In the event of war, it may be assumed that steps would be taken to ensure that men of military age unfit for active service, and women without domestic responsibilities, were employed to the best advantage in the national interest. The claims of Civil Defence would certainly not be overlooked.

Personal Case

Miss Bacon: asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement of the circumstances in which Mr. R. W. Hargreaves, 27, Lincoln Street, Leeds, 9, was

placed in grade I after a medical examination on 30th June, 1950, in view of the fact that there was evidence showing that Mr. Hargreaves had been advised not to undertake strenuous exercise for two years, and is now being invalided from the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Lee: I am making inquiries, and will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Miss Bacon: is my hon. Friend aware that I had a letter from him on this subject last August? Does not he consider it not only a waste of public money but an injury to the men concerned to treat them in this manner?

Mr. Lee: Yes, Sir, but I also know that in the same letter we pointed out that this man was placed in medical grade I on the finding of the consultant to whom he had been referred by the chairman of the medical board.

Building Workers

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour what is his most recent estimate of the number of building workers in the Armed Forces and employed in working for the Armed Forces.

Mr. Lee: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that I was told only a month ago that there were 20,000 building workers in the Armed Forces? Will he convey to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour the suggestion that just as miners have been released to dig more coal, we need the building workers out to build more houses?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Potato Acreage

Captain Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what directions he has given to Scottish farmers as to the proportion of the acreage of potatoes grown in 1950 that is to be grown in 1951; and what steps he is taking to guarantee labour to farmers to lift their crops.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNeil): Scottish farmers are being asked through the agricultural executive com-


mittees to grow in 1951 about the same acreage of potatoes as they grew in 1950. As in the past all practical steps will be taken to help farmers to secure the harvest labour that they need.

Captain Duncan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that certain local authorities are passing resolutions which will reduce the amount of child labour available for the lifting of the crops? What steps does he propose to take to deal with the matter? Does he realise that it is necessary to take steps now in order to secure the planting of the crops?

Mr. McNeil: I understand the conflicting objectives which appeal to local authorities—and they are conflicting—but we have experienced a good deal of co-operation. However, I will act as speedily as possible.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: What is the good of growing the large acreages of potatoes when at present seed potatoes in Scotland are held up on railway sidings because of the failure of British Railways—for three years in succession—to provide tarpaulin sheets to cover them?

Mr. McNeil: If the hon. Gentleman gives me a specific case, I will look into it. The movement of seed potatoes from Scotland is of great national interest, and I watch it carefully with my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Carmichael: In view of the conflicting interests in regard to child labour, is my right hon. Friend taking any steps to reduce child labour and to employ people who will not be denied further education during that period?

Mr. McNeil: My hon. Friend knows that I have never consented to any demand for children which could he met otherwise.

Teachers' Salaries

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what answer he has given to the memorandum of 3rd January from the Scottish Schoolmasters' Association in regard to the inadequacy of the proposed salary increases for the teaching profession; and whether he is prepared to reconsider the draft statutory instruments.

Mr. McNeil: I am considering this memorandum along with other representations which I have received.

Sir T. Moore: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind anyhow that the present salary scales are quite inadequate to attract the most suitable entrants to the profession or even to retain the competent teachers already in the profession, with the consequent depression of our traditional educational standards in Scotland?

Mr. McNeil: The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that I must primarily have regard to the recommendations of the National Joint Council, whose comments, criticisms, and recommendations on that I am still considering.

House Building, Ayrshire

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why, in recent months, house building in Ayrshire has been delayed by shortages of timber, cement, copper, plaster boards and water pipes; and what steps he is taking to meet this situation.

Mr. McNeil: I have no knowledge that there was any general hold-up. of building progress in Ayrshire last year, but I would be glad if my hon. Friend would give me details of the specific instances he has in mind. Whenever and wherever shortages are disclosed I attempt, along with the Production Department concerned, to repair the deficiencies on the affected site.

Mr. Hughes: Has not my right hon. Friend received a letter from the Ayr County Council saying that the timber shortage is worse than it was in 1950, and can he give an assurance that these deficiencies will be remedied in the near future?

Mr. McNeil: I have a letter from the Ayr County Council referring to one particular matter but now I am asked about a general hold-up, and I repeat that I have no information about a general hold-up.

Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, on receipt of a letter from the county clerk, I took the matter up with the Scottish Office over a fortnight ago and listed all the materials mentioned in my hon. Friend's Question, showing that there was a complete shortage and that


practically every housing scheme in Ayrshire was being held up?

Mr. McNeil: The letter from the county council referred to a shortage of timber. I am, in addition, investigating a letter from my hon. Friend.

Fishing Gear (Prices)

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what reply he has given to the letter addressed to him on 27th January by the Scottish Inshore White Fish Producers' Association, drawing attention to the recent further increase in the cost of seine net rope and its harmful consequences.

Mr. McNeil: Prices of ropes are kept under review by the Central Price Regulation Committee, but the Government do not control the price of sisal. We are now considering the release of dollars for the purchase of a limited quantity of manilla from which gear having a longer life can be made. I am writing to the Association more fully in this sense and I am sending the hon. Member a copy of my letter.

Mr. Stewart: Does that mean that the Government feel that they are quite powerless to put any brake whatever upon this galloping increase in the price of the fishermen's gear?

Mr. McNeil: I have pointed out repeatedly that the Government, with the co-operation of the trade, were keeping this continuously under exacting review, but over the raw material price, which is determined from outside, we have no direct control.

Law of Succession (Report)

Mr. Hoy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has yet received the Report of the Committee on the Law of Succession in Scotland; and, if so, when it will be published.

Mr. McNeil: I have received the Report of this Committee and I hope to present and publish it next week.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

Limbless Ex-Service Men (Claims)

Mr. L. M. Lever: asked the Minister of Pensions if he will make a statement

of the progress of the claims made by the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen Association, B.L.E.S.M.A., submitted for his consideration.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Isaacs): I am not yet in a position to make a statement on this matter.

Mr. Lever: Will my right hon. Friend expedite the statement which ought to be made in relation to the difficulties of disabled ex-Service men? Is he aware that an ex-private, a widower, who lost his leg in the 1914–18 war and was pensioned then at £1 4s. a week, today receives only £1 7s. 0d. Is my right hon. Friend prepared to allow such a situation to continue?

Mr. Isaacs: I must ask my hon. Friend to await the statement because, in addition to the representations made by the organisation mentioned in the Question, representations have been made by other bodies, and they are at present under active consideration.

Brigadier Clarke: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that these limbless ex-Service men have been waiting too long for an increase in their pensions?

Squadron Leader Burden: asked the Minister of Pensions if he will now review the war pensions paid for amputations, with a view to increasing the rates.

Mr. Isaacs: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that the provisions of the pension code as they affect all classes of pensioners are under constant review, and I am giving the matter my personal attention.

Squadron Leader Burden: Does the Minister mean by "under constant review" that the reviewing will go on so long that no action will be taken in the near future? Does he not realise that this matter is one of urgency, and will he please take action?

Mr. Isaacs: I can only repeat what I said earlier, that the representations of the various bodies on the National Advisory Council have been made to me and to my predecessor. It is only two weeks now since I took office, it is only a few days since those conferences took place, and I am under a pledge to that Advisory Council to report to them as quickly as possible.

Sir I. Fraser: Will the Minister try, with the co-operation of the Chancellor, to report to the House when the debate takes place on 16th February?

Mr. Isaacs: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate it when I say that I hope to be able to do so.

Mr. Mellish: Is my right hon. Friend aware that even the British Legion admits that the disabled ex-Serviceman is better off today than ever before?

North-West Region (Statistics)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Pensions how many pensions are now being paid by his Department in Accrington, Rishton, Oswaldtwistle, Clayton-le-Moors and Church; and how many of them include unemployability supplement.

Mr. Isaacs: I regret that the records of my Department do not enable me to give such information for individual towns without a disproportionate expenditure of time and labour. Information regarding war pensioners in the north-west region will, however, be found on page 43 of the Ministry's Twenty-fifth Annual Report.

Oral Answers to Questions — STRATEGIC MATERIALS (EXPORT)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement or issue a White Paper explaining the Government's policy regarding the export of strategic materials such as rubber, tin, etc., from the Colonial Empire and of semi-manufactured goods from this country; to what extent China is treated differently from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the satellite countries of Eastern Europe; and what representations he has had from the United States of America in this matter.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): It is the general policy of His Majesty's Government to watch and in appropriate cases to control the export of all strategic goods and materials in order to safeguard our own requirements and to help limit the flow of supplies to undesirable destinations. There is a system of export licensing controls for this purpose in this country and in the Far Eastern Colonies. China is treated on the same basis as the Soviet

Union and the East European satellites. Our policy is determined in the light of discussions with the United States and other friendly Governments.

Mr. Gammans: In view of the fact that we are having a defence debate next week, is it not essential that we should know if there are any serious differences of opinion between ourselves and the United States; secondly, does the Prime Minister realise that we were told in this House last week that the export of rubber to China was five times what it was a year ago?

The Prime Minister: I do not think it should be suggested that there are differences unless the hon. Member is prepared to bring forward evidence. We are in full discussion always on these matters. As regards rubber, I understand there is not a great amount going—not much beyond the ordinary demands of that country.

Mr. Rankin: Is the Prime Minister aware that the increase of millionaires in Malaya is keeping pace with the increase in the exports of rubber, and what steps is he taking to control that by-product?

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Surely the right hon. Gentleman himself is the only person who can say what differences there are between us and the United States on this matter? Has he been supplied with the list of strategic raw materials upon which the United States put a complete embargo, and could he say how far our policy differs from that list?

The Prime Minister: We had a full discussion on these matters. The exact details of these lists are changing from time to time. We are in close contact all the time.

Mr. Edelman: Is it not the case that both the rubber and tin markets are free markets, and could not the private sellers stop the sale of strategic materials to Russia and her satellites whenever they wanted?

Mr. Somerset de Chair: Further to the answer given by the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend, is he aware that 68,000 tons of rubber went to Russia last year and 44,000 tons to Hong Kong, the bulk of which must have gone to China, and does not he think that ought to be taken into consideration?

Oral Answers to Questions — WORLD PEACE

(Soviet Union, Discussions)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Prime Minister if he will visit Moscow immediately and discuss the problems of world peace with Marshal Stalin personally in the same way as he discussed them with President Truman in Washington and with the object of reducing the threat of a third world war.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not think that such a visit would be useful at the present time.

Mr. Osborne: Does not the Prime Minister agree that the nation would be all the more willing to bear the heavy sacrifices that rearmament must entail if it were sure that every step had been taken to prevent it from drifting into a war?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member will realise that we are in consultation at the present time with the United States and France for discussions with the Soviet Union on outstanding questions. It would obviously be wrong to cut across those and, in general, discussions of this kind need preparation. It is not much good rushing into a thing of this kind.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that if, as we all hope, such a conference takes place, this country will render its best services at the conference by stating its own independent opinion on the matters discussed, without thinking it necessary to agree them in advance with any other nation?

The Prime Minister: No, I think that is not a very wise suggestion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] When there are matters that concern the world generally—quite a number of countries—it is obvious that the more you can get agreement, the better.

Oral Answers to Questions — CINEMAS (SUNDAY PERFORMANCES)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Lord President of the Council the amount of money devoted to charity as a result of Sunday performances in cinemas during the last 12 months.

Mr. McNeil: I have been asked to reply.
The responsibility for deciding what amount shall be devoted to charity rests on the local licensing authorities. The exact figure for which the hon. Member asks is not available, but the amount applicable to charity during the 12 months ended 31st December last, was approximately £400,000.

Mr. Shepherd: In view of the change in public opinion since the Act came into being, and the plight of the film industry, has consideration been given to this question of altering the basis?

Mr. McNeil: That is quite another Question. which perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. George Thomas: Could my right hon. Friend give any indication of the total profit from the Sunday performances in cinemas?

Mr. McNeil: I think that my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension about the purpose of this Question, which refers to the proceeds of performances for specific charity purposes.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

National Insurance (Actuary's Report)

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet received the interim report of the Government Actuary under Section 39 (1) (b) of the National Insurance Act, 1946.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gaitskell): Yes, Sir. It was laid before the House on 2nd February. Copies will be available tomorrow.

Mr. Fletcher: That being so, would my right hon. Friend now, in view of the increase in the cost of living and the desirability of increasing the basic rate of pensions, give directions under the Act for an immediate review of the status of the National Insurance Fund instead of waiting until 1953?

Mr. Gaitskell: I have no power under the Act to give directions. It would have been possible to have directed the Actuary to make a comprehensive review at an earlier date than 1954, but that has not been done and this is an interim report.

Sir H. Williams: Is it the case that all the assets of this Fund have already been lent to the right hon. Gentleman, and has he not spent them all? Therefore, if he wants any money, he will have to borrow again.

Mr. Gaitskell: Well, Sir, it is, of course, profitably employed.

Savings (Poster)

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the poster appealing for national savings to finance the East African groundnuts scheme was printed and published; and when it was withdrawn from exhibition; and why.

Mr. Gaitskell: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to a poster dealing with the part national savings play in the development of colonial resources. The poster was printed in June, 1949, and had a limited distribution in September, 1949. In October, 1950, the National Savings Committee decided on a further distribution to schools but the Committee have since given instructions to withdraw the poster as part of the letterpress no longer accords with the facts.

Sir J. Mellor: Will the Chancellor agree that the poster stated that two million acres would be reclaimed and that it was published after the decision to abandon that scheme? Was it not, therefore, a grossly misleading prospectus?

Mr. Gaitskell: If the hon. Member will study the answer I gave to his original Question. I think he will see that the dates indicate that it is not the case that the poster was printed after the decision was taken.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Was the Treasury responsible for the issue of this poster or was it the Ministry of Food?

Mr. Gaitskell: The National Savings Committee.

Capital Profits (Taxation)

Mr. Alba: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will enlarge the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Taxation of Incomes to include consideration of taxes on capital gains.

Mr. Gaitskell: The Royal Commission have been informed, in reply to an inquiry

received from them, that their present terms of reference entitle them to consider the question of charging to Income Tax or Profits Tax any profit ranking as a capital profit under the existing law which might reasonably be brought within the scope of those taxes.

British Officials and Forces Personnel, France (Allowances)

Mr. William Teeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what percentage the allowances of those serving under the Foreign Office in France have recently been increased; to what extent this was according to a scale based on the cost of living recently decided upon, and how many officials were involved; by what percentage have the allowances of those members of the Royal Navy, Army and the Royal Air Force serving at present in France been reduced during the same period and how many people were involved; and why one service should have an increase and others a decrease.

Mr. Gaitskell: The allowances of Foreign Service officers employed in France were increased by rather less than 10 per cent. last April in the light of the local cost of living and the effect of the devaluation of the pound in September, 1949. This affected about 150 staff.
There are about 450 members of the British Armed Forces serving in France. They received an interim increase in their allowances in September, 1949, immediately after and in consequence of devaluation. On a review in January, 1950, new consolidated rates replaced these interim rates, being slightly higher in some cases and slightly lower in others. There has been no subsequent change except that in July, 1950, a special increase of about 35 per cent. was made in the ration allowance of those members of the Forces who were stationed in Paris.
The allowances of members of the British Armed Forces employed abroad are assessed on a different basis from those of the Foreign Service and are designed to cater for different circumstances and requirements. Changes in the allowances do not, therefore, necessarily take place at the same time or to the same extent, but I have no reason to believe that there has been any unfairness resulting from the recent changes I have described.

Mr. Teeling: Surely members of the British Forces who are serving abroad, and who may be attached to embassies or consulates or are working very closely with them, ought to be looked after in the same way as are the Foreign Office officials in France when the cost of living is going up.

Mr. Gaitskell: I have no reason to believe that the present arrangements are in any way unsatisfactory so far as the members of the Armed Forces are concerned.

Mr. Harrison: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the increased cost of living referred to in this Question applies only to Socialist countries and not to capitalist countries?

Coal Imports (Dollars)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much dollar currency has been made available to the National Coal Board for the purchase of coal from abroad.

Mr. Gaitskell: On their current import programme, the National Coal Board had by 22nd January spent 3,345,440 dollars on purchases of coal from the United States of America.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Has any limit been imposed by the right hon. Gentleman on future expenditure under this heading, and if so, what is that limit?

Mr. Gaitskell: They have been authorised to purchase up to 1.2 million tons of coal.

Brigadier Rayner: Was not the Chancellor rather disappointed to find the Coal Board buying coal at £7 a ton and selling it at £4 a ton?

Mr. Nabarro: Is the figure which the right hon. Gentleman has quoted based on an f.o.b. or a c.i.f. basis, and was the coal transported in British or American ships?

Mr. Gaitskell: The figure is the cost including the freight figure and it includes such dollar freight as there was.

Mr. Paget: Is not the position that, because of the efficiency of the National Coal Board, coal produced in England is about half the price of coal produced in the rest of the world?

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Does not the right hon. Gentleman's reply mean that before

these transactions are completed, dollar expenditure by the National Coal Board will be at least twice as much as that which was indignantly refused by the Government for increasing the basic ration of petrol last year?

Austrian Loan (Czech Obligations)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps His Majesty's Government have taken to induce the Czechoslovak Government to fulfil their obligations in respect of their guarantee to pay their share of the 4½ per cent. Austrian Government Guaranteed Conversion Loan, 1934–1959, entered into in the Trade and Financial Agreement signed in London by the British and the Czechoslovaks on 28th September, 1949.

Mr. Gaitskell: The Czechoslovak Government's obligations in respect of this loan arise not from Trade and Financial Agreement with His Majesty's Government, but from the guarantee which they gave through the Trustees to the bondholders when the loan was issued in 1934. In reply to repeated protests, the Czechoslovak Government have maintained the view expressed in 1949, to the effect that their guarantee was conditional on the continued operation of certain measures of international control over the Austrian Government's finances, which have lapsed. His Majesty's Government have rejected this contention entirely, but have taken all possible steps in the course of negotiations on the subject of Austria to secure a solution of the wider problem of Austria's foreign indebtedness.

Mr. Teeling: In view of the coming trade negotiations, in or about May I believe, with Czechoslovakia, will the Government try to bear this particular point in mind and do all they can to see that Czechoslovakia this time pays what it has not hitherto paid?

Mr. Gaitskell: We will certainly lose no opportunity of pressing this particular point upon the Czech Government.

Death Duties

Mr. Eccles: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the representations made to him, he has any statement to make regarding the effect of Death Duties on engineering and other firms whose capital is held in a few hands.

Mr. Gaitskell: I have received the representations to which the hon. Member refers, but so far no concrete evidence in in support of them has been produced.

Mr. Eccles: Is not the Chancellor aware that the incidence of Death Duties upon these small firms in private hands both discourages them from expansion and encourages them to distribute their profits, and surely he can get plenty of evidence of that from the Midlands, at any rate.

Mr. Gaitskell: It is precisely the lack of evidence to which my original answer referred.

Post-War Credits

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will repay post-war credits to those applicants whose needs are certified by the Assistance Board, and so save the expenditure of public money.

Mr. Gaitskell: I have nothing to add to the reply given on the 13th November last to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Smithers).

Mr. Jeger: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of applicants for assistance need small sums occasionally for the renewal of clothing and household goods, and would it not be better to give them their own money in the form of the repayment of their post-war credits rather than to pay them out of the Assistance Board funds?

Mr. Gaitskell: I very much doubt whether the small numbers of persons who would be able to claim post-war credits in those circumstances would justify the expenditure of effort and administrative man-power in arranging the particular scheme which my hon. Friend suggests.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Is the Chancellor aware that there is widespread anxiety on this matter on both sides of the House, and will he bear in mind when framing his Budget the possibility of reform?

Mr. Gaitskell: If the hon. and gallant Member will study this, he will see that it is really a very narrow point.

Mr. Iain MacLeod: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this question has the further advantage that it might encourage people to accept payments from National Assistance, which at the moment many of them, for perfectly honourable reasons, are reluctant to do?

Income Tax (Recalled Reservists)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to subject to tax the bounty to be paid to Reservists to be recalled for service this year.

Mr. Gaitskell: These bounties will not be subject to Income Tax.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will that principle be applied also to bounties paid to members of the Terirtorial Army going to camp?

Mr. Gaitskell: I think that is the case.

Wages and Dividends

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the danger of inflation and of the evils that would result from it, he will appeal to both employees and the trade unions to reimpose the wage and dividend freeze for the next two years.

Mr. Gaitskell: I think that the attitude of His Majesty's Government in this matter has already been made quite clear in a number of recent pronouncements, namely, that great restraint continues to be necessary both in regard to wage claims and to dividend payments.

Mr. Osborne: Is not the Chancellor aware that there are large wage increases due in the next few months, that dividend increases have been made recently, and that both these things tend to make inflation come nearer and will sabotage the National Savings Movement; and cannot the right hon. Gentleman do anything more about it?

Mr. Gaitskell: I think that the hon. Member would probably agree that I have myself expressed the views of the Government on a number of occasions. This is not an easy or straightforward matter, and it is no good rushing into it expecting to get an easy solution, but we shall keep in touch with both sides of


industry on this problem and try to do everything we can to prevent any inflationary influence.

Mrs. Braddock: Would my right hon. Friend intimate to local authorities that it has been very provocative, particularly in the Liverpool area, that salaries to town clerks, treasurers, directors of housing, etc., have been raised by between £20 and £25 a week, and that this is very provocative as far as the dockers are concerned in the Liverpool area?

Mr. Eccles: Would it not have been better to tackle the inflation at the root rather than to reimpose these controls?

Mr. Gaitskell: I am all in favour of using every possible method of dealing with inflation. In reply to my hon. Friend, this is really a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, but there is a limit to what a Minister can do in the way of giving directions to local authorities.

Mrs. Braddock: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. May I have your assistance? My right hon. Friend has said that this is a matter for the Minister of Health. We are informed that the Minister of Health has nothing to do with it. Can we have your assistance in this matter?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot answer that, because I know nothing at all about it.

Mr. Gaitskell: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I should have said, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Local Government and Planning.

Expenditure (Economies)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the additional sums required for rearmament and the restricted scope for new taxes, if he will appoint a committee to investigate what economies can be made in public expenditure on similar lines to the May Committee of 1939.

Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir.

Mr. Osborne: Can the Chancellor say whether rearmament can be financed without cuts in civil expenditure?

Mr. Gaitskell: I must ask the hon. Member to await my Budget statement.

Mr. Snow: In view of the very considerable approval which is given in Conservative circles to the opinions of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), will my right hon. Friend take note of the sort of economies which are being called for?

International Commodity Groups

Mr. Edelman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the proposed international commodity groups will have consumer and producer as well as governmental representation.

Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir. Governments alone will be represented on the proposed international commodity groups.

Mr. Edelman: Will my right hon. Friend at least keep in close touch with industrial consumers in this country who are getting rather impatient at the slow progress of these negotiations?

Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir, certainty.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will all Governments be invited to take part?

Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir, only the Governments which are the principal producers and consumers.

Mr. Silverman: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is intended to be a contribution to easing the tensions of the world and a contribution to the maintenance of peace to deny large parts of the world access to raw materials?

Mr. Gaitskell: That is quite another question.

Income Tax (Allowances)

Mr. Gilbert Longden: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider increasing the amount of the deduction for Income Tax purposes which may be made under Section 22 (1) of the Finance Act, 1920, by a claimant who maintains a relative either because that relative, or because the claimant himself, is incapacitated by old age or infirmity from maintaining himself.

Mr. Gaitskell: The hon. Member will not expect me to anticipate my Budget statement.

Mr. Longden: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember this small point


when framing his Budget statement, so as to give some relief to a very hard-pressed section of the community?

Mr. Gaitskell: I will take note of what the hon. Member says.

Review, "Bulletin For Industry"

Mr. John Grimston: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost of the review entitled "Bulletin for Industry" issued by the Economic Information Unit of the Treasury.

Mr. Gaitskell: The cost of each issue, including distribution, is approximately £62.

Mr. Grimston: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the January issue of this bulletin contained information about copper which was promptly contradicted by the Minister of Supply? Would he therefore make an economy by cutting publication now?

Mr. Gaitskell: I am not aware of that, but I will certainly look into the point mentioned by the hon. Member. This particular review is. I am informed, very popular in industry and we are being pressed for additional copies.

Anglo-Egyptian Negotiations

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now make a statement on the recent Anglo-Egyptian financial negotiations.

Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir. The negotiations have not yet been concluded.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that before these negotiations are concluded and any further releases are made from the sterling balances, His Majesty's Government will get an assurance on British rights in and through the Suez Canal?

Mr. Gaitskell: I could not give any such assurance.

British Firms, The Argentine

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he has taken to ensure that British firms in the Argentine enjoy facilities for making remittances to this country.

Mr. Gaitskell: During the negotiations in Buenos Aires in 1949, we secured certain assurances about the clearance of arrears. Moreover, the Argentine Government undertook, subject to the availability of sterling, to permit current remittances without restriction. We have spared no effort to secure the fulfilment of these undertakings, but the Argentine Government have so far failed to implement them.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: When the Chancellor talks about these negotiations, is he aware that British firms have not been able to send remittances since 1949? What further action is he taking to get this particular pledge of the Argentine Government fulfilled?

Mr. Gaitskell: I do not know what more we can do. We have pressed them continuously and engaged in discussion and, so far, have not been able to get them to fulfil the undertaking.

Gold and Dollar Reserves

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason His Majesty's Government have been heavy converters of dollars into gold in the latter part of 1950.

Mr. Gaitskell: It has always been the policy of His Majesty's Government to hold the bulk of the reserves in gold.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: If that is his policy, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions; first, why he has not used any surplus dollars to repay the International Monetary Fund the sum which may become payable by His Majesty's Government and, secondly, whether he really thinks it helps the Americans at present to transfer dollar securities and thus add to their economic problems?

Mr. Gaitskell: There is no evidence that the American Government has any objection to our pursuing our normal economic policy.

Reservists (Pay)

Mr. Pannell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in any call-up of men to the Armed Forces, he will take steps to ensure that any decision taken by His Majesty's Government to make up


the balance of civil pay to the Civil Service will also extend in a similar manner to the advantage of all other employees, in view of the fact that failure to do this caused much discontent during the last war.

Mr. Gaitskell: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Hare), on 28th November, 1950, to which I have nothing at present to add.

Mr. Pannell: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that any decision that is ultimately made on this will, if the Government give the lead, also affect the staffs of local authorities and the nationalised boards? Would he agree that it is undesirable in any future emergency that the sort of situation we saw in the last emergency should take place and men in the Services should be rated and taxed to make up the civil pay of people often very much better off than themselves?

Mr. Gaitskell: I think this is an extremely complicated and difficult question, but the Government are considering it and we will make known our decision in due course.

Motor Car Taxation

Mr. Macdonald: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to rectify the present hardship on owners of cars manufactured prior to 1946 by granting them the same registration fee as for cars manufactured since that date.

Mr. Gaitskell: I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.

Mr. Macdonald: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, with the ever-decreasing number of new cars available to the home market, this piece of legislation is causing increasing hardship to people forced to use old cars for business and private purposes?

Mr. Gaitskell: I will take note of the hon. Member's opinion.

Mr. S. Silverman: In considering this question, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the answer which his predecessor gave me some time ago to the effect that the inequity could be easily removed by

adding only a few shillings—I think it was a pound—to the £10 charged on new cars and making it in that way a slightly increased flat rate on all cars?

Circus (Import from Germany)

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has given his approval to the financial arrangements under which the Williams Circus is to be imported from Germany and established in this country, bringing with it permanent equipment such as trailers, tents and seating.

Mr. Gaitskell: Import licences are a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. When an import licence is granted any necessary foreign currency is made available auto matically. My latest information, however, is that the circus is not to be established here and that some of the equipment which had already arrived is to be returned.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVANTS (EX-SERVICE ORGANISATIONS)

Mr. Wood: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether civil servants are prevented from accepting honorary office with ex-Service organisations.

Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir, provided that acceptance of the office would not conflict with his position as an officer of a particular Department, or be inconsistent with his employment as a public servant.

Mr. Wood: Does not the fact that chairmanship of an ex-Service organisation has recently been ruled incompatible with a man's work in the Ministry of Labour run counter to the right hon. Gentleman's answer?

Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir, I do not think I should agree with that. This question is left to the individual Departments to decide, but I think it is clear that in cases like that there may be a conflict between the policy of the association to which the hon. Gentleman referred and the policy of the Ministry of Labour.

Miss Bacon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in a letter I received from the previous Minister of Labour, it was stated that this applied to all civil servants in the Ministry of Labour?

Mr. Gaitskell: I think that would be so.

Sir I. Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hundreds of civil servants have for 15 or 20 years occupied these honorary posts in the British Legion and other societies without interference from the Civil Service or Ministers?

Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir. There is no objection unless there is a conflict between their holding such offices and their position in their Departments.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

Officials (Powers of Entry)

Mr. Fitzroy Maclean: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total number of officials authorised to carry out inspections and investigations in private houses and premises without a search warrant.

Mr. Gaitskell: The number of officials who may exercise statutory powers to enter private houses used exclusively as such is 5,478, of whom 4,484 are officers of the Inland Revenue mainly rating valuation staff; 974 are assessors acting for the War Damage Commission, and 20 are members or officers of the Board of Control.

Mr. Maclean: Can the Chancellor say if that includes all premises—all private premises and business premises as well?

Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir, it does not include business premises.

Mr. Maclean: Why not?

Mr. Gaitskell: Because the Question relates to houses.

Survey of Sickness, Yorkshire

Mr. Turton: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, how many members of the Social Survey Division of the Central Office of Information have been engaged since 1st January, 1951, in carrying out a Survey of Sickness in Yorkshire; what has been the aggregate daily mileage of the members engaged on this work; to what extent Civil Service car units are being used; and what is the estimated cost of this survey.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): During January no members of the staff of the Social Survey were engaged on work in Yorkshire, but 15 part-time investigators worked there over 10 days on the Survey of Sickness. Ministry of Supply cars were used in two rural areas, and their aggregate daily mileage was 125. The total cost of the inquiry in the whole of England and Wales in January was £2,636, of which £283 was incurred in Yorkshire.

Mr. Turton: Is it not very wrong for the Ministry of Supply cars to be used by part-time investigators asking unnecessary questions in private homes?

Mr. Jay: I understand that the cars are only used in rural areas where public transport is not available.

Mr. Albu: Will my hon. Friend do nothing to interfere with the extremely valuable work which is being done by this survey?

Mr. Jay: I think it is clearly necessary to get accurate information about health and sickness.

Mr. Turton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this work is being done perfectly well by the Ministry of Health and that it is a scandalous waste of public money and petrol to use the Ministry of Supply cars for this purpose?

Mr. Jay: This information was collected on behalf of the Ministry of Health and this is one of the sources from which the Ministry of Health's information is obtained.

Oral Answers to Questions — REQUISITIONED HOTELS, LONDON

Commander Noble: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the owner's agents did not appreciate from the informal discussions that four London hotels would be derequisitioned if any hotel keeper was willing to take them over and that offers have now been made for at least one of them, he will now reconsider the whole position.

The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. Bottomley): As my right hon. Friend informed the hon. and gallant Member in his letter of 23rd January, it is no


longer possible to carry on with the arrangements for releasing these premises from requisition since there is not time to find alternative hostel accommodation for the 500 young people who live there, and to rehabilitate the premises in time to house visitors for the Festival of Britain.

Commander Noble: As the Minister has himself admitted in this House that these discussions were informal, and I have produced evidence given in good faith that the owner's agents never appreciated that these hotels would really be derequisitioned, does not the hon. Member think that he could again reconsider the matter?

Mr. Bottomley: We might be able to reconsider it again for next year, but clearly there would not be time to do so for this year.

Mr. Keeling: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the attitude of his Department has created an exceedingly bad impression?

Commander Noble: In view of the way in which this matter was originally handled, and in view of the answer today, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

BILL PRESENTED

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SUPPLEMENTATION) BILL

"to provide for the payment of allowances out of the Industrial Injuries Fund with a view to supplementing workmen's compensation where the accident happened before nineteen twenty-four, and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Dr. Summerskill; supported by Mr. Herbert Morrison, Mr. Ede, Mr. Bevan, Mr. McNeil, Mr. Isaacs and Mr. Bernard Taylor; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 61.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings of the Committee of Supply and of the Committee of Ways and Means exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — ALKALI, &c., WORKS REGULATION (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland), "That the Bill be committed to the Scottish Standing Committee."—[Mr. T. Fraser.]

Question agreed to.

Bill (deemed to have been read a Second time) committed to the Scottish Standing Committee.

LIVESTOCK REARING [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the provisions of the Hill Farming Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as "the principal Act"), relating to the rehabilitation of hill farming land, the payment of subsidies in respect of hill sheep and hill cattle and the control of rams in England and Wales, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of—

(a) any increase in,—

(i) the sums authorised by section one of the principal Act to be paid out of such moneys by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary of State by way of grants in respect of the cost of work done in accordance with schemes approved under that section;
(ii) the amounts which, under subsection (3) of section five of that Act, may he paid out of such moneys by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary of State in respect of the cost of work done in accordance with a scheme so approved in so far as that cost is rendered abortive by the revocation or variation of the scheme in the public interest;
(iii) the expenses incurred under the principal Act by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in doing work required for the making of improvements for the benefit of land that is subject to rights of common of pasture;
being an increase attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session extending the class of land for the improvement of which grants may he made under the principal Act by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary of State or work may be done under that Act by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries:


(b) any increase in the sums mentioned in head (i) of the foregoing sub-paragraph which is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session—

(i) extending by five years the period within which schemes may be submitted under section one of the principal Act for the approval of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries or the Secretary of State;
(ii) increasing by sixteen million pounds the maximum amount that may he paid in the aggregate by way of grants under that section and by one million pounds the amount by which the said maximum amount may he increased by an Order made by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary of State and approved by a Resolution of this House, and extending by five years the period within which an order providing for increasing the said maximum amount may be so made;
(c) any increase in the sums which, under section thirteen of the principal Act, are to he defrayed out of such moneys, being an increase attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session increasing by five the number of years by reference to which the making by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary of State of payments in respect of sheep comprised in flocks kept on hill lands and cattle grazed on such land is authorised by that section;
(d) any expenses incurred by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries which are attributable to any provisions of the said Act of the present Session empowering him to make regulations providing for the inspection of rams and uncastrated ram lambs by referees appointed by him;
(e) any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the administrative expenses incurred for the purposes of the principal Act by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary of State or either of them:
(2) the payment into the Exchequer of any sum recovered under any provision of the said Act of the present Session from any person by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries or the Secretary of State.

Resolution agreed to.

LIVESTOCK REARING BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(EXTENSION OF CLASS OF LAND FOR IMPROVEMENT OF WHICH GRANTS MAY BE MADE UNDER THE PRINCIPAL ACT.)

3.33 p.m.

The Chairman (Major Milner): Mr. Grimond.

Mr. Grimond: I understand that there is to be a general discussion on the group of Amendments standing on the Order Paper.

The Chairman: I think it would be for the general convenience of the Committee if we had a general discussion and then had Divisions on any Amendment on which that was desired by right hon. and hon. Members.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: How many Amendments is it intended that we should include in the proposed general discussion? Is it proposed that such discussion should embrace the Amendments down to the one standing in my name, in page 2, line 32, after "extent," to insert "of milk for sale liquid"? I ask that because the three following proposed Amendments to Clause 1 are on rather different points.

The Chairman: I quite agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, if that is agreeable to the Committee.

Mr. Peter Roberts: Might I point out that the Amendments which stand in my name, in page 2, line 28, after "heath," to insert:
or has within the last fifteen years keen heath.
and, in page 2, line 33, to leave out from "cattle," to the end of line 35, are slightly different. Could we have a discussion on the first group of Amendments and leave the second group of Amendments until later because I suggest that the last three proposed Amendments to the Clause are on very different points? I would agree to the first set of Amendments being considered in a general discussion if we could leave open the question of the discussion of the second of my Amendments at a later stage.

Mr. Hollis: Do I understand that the last three Amendments are to be discussed separately or all three together, as they cover rather different points?

The Chairman: They may, quite shortly, be taken separately.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): With reference to what was said by the hon. Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts), may I suggest that while the Amendment to which he referred differs wholly from the other three in that they refer to particular forms of agriculture whereas his refers to a particular kind of land, they are almost identical since on the particular kind of land to which his Amendment refers a particular form of agriculture can be undertaken?

Mr. P. Roberts: If that observation refers to the first set of Amendments I agree. I was referring to the second set.

Mr. Grimond: I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, to leave out "predominantly," and to insert "to a substantial extent."
This Amendment and the others upon which we have agreed to have a general discussion have in view the giving to the Minister of rather wider discretion as to the kind of land to which this Bill will apply, and to the type of agricultural activity to be carried on on that land. The Bill, as drafted, states, in Clause 1 (3,a):
'livestock rearing land' means land situated in an area consisting predominantly of mountains, hills or heath, …
That is a vital definition in regard to the Bill as a whole. It is absolutely vital to the whole intention and construction of the Bill to know what we mean by the term "livestock rearing land." We were assured on Second Reading that the intention was to widen the scope of the Bill as compared with the Hill Farming Act, and to allow tracts of land which might not have been eligible under the Act to qualify for grants under this Bill if they fulfil other conditions.
The word "predominantly" seems to me to mean that a farmer or landowner who is applying for assistance under this Bill will have to show not only that he can usefully draw up a scheme for an area of "mountains, hills or heath" but that his farm or estate is largely confined to "mountains, hills or heath." What

concerns me is lest certain farms in which there is an upland area and a considerable amount of low arable ground which would clearly not qualify under the Bill, will be ruled out. By that I mean that the farmer might be told, "We cannot agree to your scheme for your upland area because you have not shown us that your farm consists predominantly of that type of land."
I believe that this Bill can do a great service in that part of the country and outlying areas of Scotland where there is a great deal of upland which can be greatly improved. I do not believe that it can be the intention of the Minister to exclude from the operation of the Bill the farmer who might be using with his heathland or upland a fairly large area of arable lowland ground. I do not see the logic of that position nor do I see that it would be in the interest of what the Bill seeks to encourage.
My other point is very much the same. As I read the Clause, the benefits of this Bill are denied to farmers who carry on various types of farming. The second Amendment with which I and my hon. Friends are concerned, in page 2, line 32. to leave out "to any material extent," and to insert "predominantly," envisages that the Clause is designed to allow a farmer who is raising some fat stock to apply, and, if he fulfils the conditions, to succeed in his application for help under this Bill. We propose, by the change of words our Amendment suggests, that instead of excluding the farmer who is engaged to any material extent in the production of fat sheep or fat cattle we should modify that provision and only exclude the farmer who is predominantly and principally engaged in the rearing of fat stock.
There is another Amendment down which I think is designed to cut out this part of the Bill altogether and to allow the farmer engaged in fatstock rearing to qualify under the Bill. Candidly, I should prefer that, but I see that the Government designed this Bill for a certain kind of farmer and the man who is engaged purely in fatstock rearing or dairy farming benefits in other ways; it is not their intention to help him. The reason we have proposed a modification in this Bill is that we appreciate that point. But we ask the Minister to note that this Bill could do great good to


farmers who are raising fatstock, and farmers farming the type of land which would be enormously benefited by a scheme under this Bill. Therefore I believe we are giving the Minister a little more discretion to help certain classes of farmers who might otherwise be excluded from this Bill.

Mr. Turton: The Minister dealt with some of these questions on the Second Reading debate and said it was the intention that this Bill should exclude from benefit milk production and the production of milk products, such as butter, cheese or cream, and farms devoted mainly to stock rearing. I hope that is the intention of the Minister, and there is not a great deal of difference between the two sides of the Committee about this matter.
I wish to take the legal point which is of less importance although in the drafting of a Bill it is of some importance. This Bill excludes the man who is carrying on dairy farming. Up to now we are excluding the production of certain crops; here we are excluding the carrying on of dairy farming, which I believe to be the wrong approach. It is the product which should be excluded and not the carrying on of certain types of farming.
I have tried to find a definition of dairy farming, in previous Acts and the only definition I have found—I hope the Minister or his legal advisers will correct me if I am wrong—is in the Food and Drugs (Milk and Dairies) Act, 1944. In Section 8 both "dairy farm" and "dairy farmer" are defined; and it is clear from the definitions that a dairy farmer is a man who produces milk from cows. It is the production of milk, and not what happens afterwards to the milk that is the deciding factor. That would make it appear in my view, and I hope in the view of the Minister, that however we may differ in intention the words
the carrying on…of dairy farming
do not carry out the intention he expressed on the Second Reading of this Bill.
We cannot escape from the conclusion that, if we are to produce more meat in this country, we have to tackle those areas which are now and will, probably until 1953, be engaged in milk production. I put in the year 1953, because I believe that will be the year when the Act which

I have quoted will operate; and farmers with unsatisfactory cow byres will be guided from milk production into store rearing and will not be producing milk for liquid sales. In that interregnum it is important that those farms should be improved, so that in addition to their milk production, they are producing the cattle we are so urgently requiring for our meat ration every week. At the present time under the Hill Farming Act the Minister's administration is not assisting the improvement of those hill farms.
3.45 p.m.
I do not know what is the experience in Scotland, but I know what is the experience in my own county. It may well be that it varies from county to county. I have been distressed to find that farms, where a certain amount of improvement under the Hill Farming Act could have meant a very large increase in the production of mutton and beef, have been prevented from receiving help—or hindered from receiving it—on the excuse that they were mainly engaged in milk farming.
I will give the Minister two instances. There was a farm of 95 acres in my constituency which had a right of stray for 50 sheep. That farm had on it six to eight cows in milk and the farmer was rearing only his heifer calves. Application was made under the Hill Farming Act for improvements to roads, the erection of a Dutch barn and part of the cost of improvement to the house. The Ministry refused that application on the ground that his milk sales for the year approximated to £900 from his six to eight cows, whereas his income from his sheep stray, wool clip, lambs and draft ewes amounted to £350.
That seems a wrong way to tackle this problem. It should not be whether milk is more remunerative at the present time than sheep and wool, because after all the price of wool alters. It should be whether a farm is suitable for the production of livestock, whether hill sheep and cattle under that Act, or livestock rearing under this Bill, and whether there is more meat for the nation as a result. In the particular instance I have given, although the Minister refused the grain it happened that there was a change of tenancy; and by ordering that the incoming tenant should abstain from milk production another application succeeded.


I believe that that attitude on the part of the Ministry is very dangerous at the present time.
I have another farm in my constituency, of 188 acres, where just at the time of the Hill Farming Act a road had been constructed by the landlord at a cost of something like £2,500. Immediately that happened the farmer engaged in selling milk, because the milk lorry could get up to his farm. At that time that was the most backward farm in the whole of the hill farm area, and we had the curious position that, because it had a road to the farm and was selling a little milk in order to pay its way—because of the monthly cheque—all the other farms in the areas succeeded in getting a hill farm grant, but that farm was excluded; because it had a good road and therefore the farmer could sell milk. I hope the Minister will realise there is something wrong with the basis of administration if things of that kind can happen.
I would remind the Minister of two other matters which I think are clear from the Hill Sheep Farming Committee Report, the De La Warr Report. From the Table VII of Appendix II, it will be seen that the position regarding milk production on the upland farms varies tremendously from one county to another. That Table indicates how in Northumberland the proportion of income from sheep and wool was 86 per cent. with 14 per cent. from other sources including milk. But in Swaledale we find it is 71 per cent. from other sources and only 29 per cent. from sheep and wool.
The other bit of evidence about which I would remind him appears in the Exmoor Survey where they show in that area how on the smaller farms the dairy has displaced the traditional livestock farm; that is from page 6 of the National Farmers' Union booklet on this matter. There is a grave danger that unless this Bill is amended, the smaller farms, which are in such urgent need of the monthly cheque, will suffer. The large farms will escape. They have not got quite the same need of the monthly cheque. They have very large areas of hill sheep and hill cattle. By this close drafting, we shall shut out from benefit the small man.
I am certain that that is not the Minister's intention. I firmly believe that the

future of these men is in livestock rearing with, as a side line, the production of butter and scalded cream, or Devonshire cream. That is the future we ought to build up. I hope that the Minister will consider the Amendment in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Dugdale), in page 2, line 32, after "extent" to insert "of milk for sale liquid." That is where I believe the exclusion should be based. What really matters is the instructions which the Minister sends out to those who will administer this Bill. Those instructions, at present, are not right. I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically at our point of view.

Mr. Snadden: I wish to add a few words in support of what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said about the type of land which will benefit under this Bill. Probably the reason why he put his Amendment on the Order Paper was to clarify his mind as to the type of land or country which will benefit under this Bill. In the Minister's statement to this House last July, and again in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to this Bill, the words "upland areas" are used. The Memorandum refers to:
'livestock rearing land' which in addition to hill farming land includes land in upland areas.
I am really concerned with those two words, "upland areas." In my part of the country—and I think that this is common in other parts, particularly in Wales—many farms are of what we call an upland nature. Yet they are located at, or very little above, sea level.
The word "predominantly" suggests to me that, conceivably, altitude is to be the yardstick under this Bill. But even in Scotland which has much mountainous country, especially in the north-east in Caithness, Aberdeenshire and Ross and Cromarty, where stock raising is the principal form of husbandry—which, after all, is the objective of this Bill—scores of farms are located either at or near sea level although they are what we call in Scotland of an upland nature.
I want to make sure that we do not exclude these holdings by reason of altitude, because if we do that, a very large number of stock-rearing farms in so called upland areas will be denied the benefits


of this Bill. I recognise that in introducing legislation it is extremely difficult to draw the line when attempting to define anything. I admire the work of the agricultural executive committees. They try to do the best they can and to avoid any sort of discontent about people being disappointed when they submit schemes. I do not want the agricultural executive committees to be confused over this. It is difficult when dealing with what are known as upland or marginal farms to draw the line between those and what are called semi-upland or poor arable farms.
There is confusion here as to the intention of the Government. Altitude should not be the yardstick. In the hill cattle scheme, the Government ventured to define what was meant by the word "uplands." If the right hon. Gentleman can tell me that the definition upon which the Government will base the administration of this Bill is the same, I shall be satisfied. That definition said:
'Uplands' means in upland districts land forming units which are not used wholly or substantially for the production of milk, for stock or crops for sale.
If that is the definition, then I, and, I think, most people in Scotland, would be satisfied. My experience is similar to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) on the question of excluding people who are selling a considerable amount of milk although they may be situated in an upland area.
One of our problems today, which no doubt will be referred to when we debate the meat famine on Thursday, is the complete disappearance from our herds of an extremely useful animal called the dual-purpose animal. We have gone milk crazy. The result is that we have specialised in dairy produce and the dual-purpose animal has almost ceased to exist. We want many of these farmers to go back into the dual-purpose breeding business, so that they will contribute to our meat supplies as well as to our milk supplies. But they will sell milk.
I should like a reply from the Minister stating perhaps some sort of percentage of sales—I should imagine somewhere between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. If farmers are not selling more than that, they should come under this Bill and enjoy the benefits of these improvement schemes. I hope that we shall get an

answer, particularly to the first part of our discussion.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): Perhaps it will be convenient if I intervene now and explain the attitude of the Government towards these Amendments. I do not think that there is very much between the Government and those who want to make these Amendments, as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) said. Hon. Members seem to fear that if the word "predominantly" remains in this part of the Clause, a farmer who produces any fatstock or any milk will automatically be ruled out. That is not so. We tried to make that clear during the Second Reading debate. I hope that we may make it a little clearer now.
We have in mind that many of these upland farmers, who would qualify for assistance for an improvement scheme under this Bill as it is worded, will in fact be producing some fatstock or milk. Hon. Members must remember that the amount of money that we have available to spend under this Bill is not without limit. There is some £20 million to be spent. I think hon. Members would wish that it should be spent for the purpose set out in the Bill; that is to say, for the improvement of land which is being used or is capable of being used for the purpose of rearing livestock. That is the purpose of the proposed expenditure of this £20 million.
If we widen the definition, if we bring in great areas of land which would not come in under our definition, manifestly the Ministers' responsibilities will be more difficult in selecting the schemes which they will approve for grant, and it might very well be that they might be giving part of this £20 million to farmers who are not mainly concerned with developing their stock rearing at all. I do not think hon. Members would want that.
4.0 p.m.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) feared that, if a farmer with a considerable upland area—land which was wholly upland or heath land—but who also had a considerable area of low-lying land which he could use for fatstock or milk production, and milk production in particular, he would not, because he had this good arable


land, be able to qualify for an improvement grant under the existing definition. I hope to convince the hon. Gentleman that he is wrong, because, even under the parent Act, the Hill Farming Act, 1946, we have been able to consider applications from farmers on these mixed farms, which have very considerable hill farming interests and also arable farming interests on the same farm. If it is a very small farm, it is difficult to separate the two; if it is not such a small farm, it becomes comparatively easy to separate them, and I can say to him that we are willing to consider an improvement scheme which applies to that part of the farm which is upland farming.
Likewise, we would be able to consider applications for assistance for the provision of buildings and all the other things mentioned in the Schedule of the parent Act, insofar as they are necessary for the improvement of the land and of the productive capacity of that part of his farming interest which is devoted to the breeding of livestock, but we would exclude any buildings or improvement works calculated to improve the other part of his farming interest, which is that part of his farm given over to the feeding of fatstock, the production of crops or the production of milk. Of course, if the production of milk is a very small part of the farmer's interest, if the crops which he grows are consumed on the farm, it is possible, under our definition, that an improvement scheme which provided for works on the arable part of his farm might also be included, if they are a minor and secondary consideration in the total economy of the farm.
I doubt whether there is very much between us. The hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) thought that if we did not amend this definition—he was following up a point made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland—altitude might very well be the criterion. I do assure him that there is no intention at all of making altitude the criterion, and that is not the case under the parent Act. In some of our Highland districts, we have land which is a little above sea level but which qualifies under the parent Act, and of course, land, no matter what its altitude, whether heath land or land of an upland nature, would also qualify under the definition in this Bill.
The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) mentioned the case of the small farmer who really needs his monthly milk cheque, and he wanted to see that that type of man was assisted. I think it would be a mistake for hon. Members to wish to see some part of the £20 million provided in this Bill spent on improving the ability of these small farmers to make their monthly milk cheques still bigger cheques. After all, that man does receive his regular monthly milk cheque, and he also has some guarantees under Part I of the 1947 Act, under which he has assured prices and markets and so on.
If his main interest in his farm is the production of milk, and if he needs to be assisted, another way should be found of doing it. If, however, the sale of milk is a small item in the economy of his farm, and if his farm is mainly devoted to, and is mainly suitable for, the rearing of livestock, he would come in. It is a matter of emphasis. If we set out under this Bill to spend public money in order to assist landowners and farmers in improving and rehabilitating the land which is used mainly for the production or rearing of livestock, I do not think we should amend the Bill in order to give the Ministers power to spend any part of that money on land which is really being used for another purpose.

Mr. Turton: I think the hon. Gentleman has got the position wrong. I gave him a clear instance of an actual case, where part of the man's income comes from the monthly milk cheque and part of it from hill sheep and hill cattle. In that case, that man was not allowed certain improvements because he was engaged in milk production. The point we are making is that the monthly milk cheque is part of the process of improvement. We want to see that man get into livestock rearing, but he must go through that process of milk production before he can get on to livestock rearing, which we all want to see.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, wherever the line is drawn, the Ministers who are administering the Act will be subjected to some criticism, because some people fall on one side of the line and some on the other. In the case which he mentioned, it was clear that the farmer who first applied was ruled out because of his milk


production, and his successor on the same farm was successful because he had gone over from milk production to stock rearing.

Mr. Turton: He undertook not to produce milk; that is all.

Mr. Fraser: The Minister's advisers must have been satisfied that the best use to which to put this land was that of hill farming and not that of milk production, and that is the test and will be the test, no matter how this Clause is altered by any of these Amendments. That would have to be the test that the Minister would apply, and which he would have to ask his committees to apply, in deciding which schemes to approve and which not to approve.
Another point was made about the desirable development of the dual-purpose animal, the breed which would give some beef and also some milk. The hon. Member for West Perth said that it was very desirable that we should encourage the keeping of these animals. We do not disagree, but let us again have in mind whether the farmer who is going in for these dual-purpose animals is producing a certain amount of milk and some beef. In very many cases, though not all, he is producing milk and obtaining stock for the market, but he is not rearing livestock.

Mr. Donald Scott: There are a great many farms in Cumberland which fit into this argument very well indeed. There are farms where there are dual-purposes shorthorns reared primarily to supply heifers to lowland dairy farmers, where the cows are sold as stores and where little, if any, milk is sold off the holding. They are a most wonderful reservoir of the dual-purpose animal.

Mr. Fraser: I entirely accept that, but I should have thought that the picture of the Cumberland farm which the hon. Gentleman has just given us is quite different from that of the farm about which his hon. Friend the Member for West Perth told us. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Very well, let us agree that both hon. Gentlemen have the same thing in mind. If the land in question is predominantly utilised for the purpose of livestock rearing, then it would be in under our definition. The hon. Gentleman opposite said

that he would be perfectly happy if he could have the assurance that that was the definition of this Bill. That is precisely what we have in mind.
We ask the Committee, however, not to insist on putting in the words "to a substantial extent" and on removing the word "predominantly," and then, later on, to remove the words "to any material extent," and to substitute the word "predominantly," because then we should be altering the emphasis altogether, and the only consequence would be that the Minister concerned would be asked to consider applications for improvement grants from a very large number of farmers. He would have no money to pay out at the end of the day, and in making his selection he would require to say "No" to very many people. If he includes the types of farms that have been mentioned in the course of the discussion so far, he could only do so at the expense of the well-established livestock rearing farms in the country.
I should have thought that what we want to do is to build up livestock rearing and to encourage it all we can by providing buildings and bringing about all the improvements possible in the areas given over substantially to the rearing of livestock, and to allow the other people who get their income in the main from the monthly milk cheque or from the sale of fat stock to be without any part of this £20 million. That, I think, is the correct approach, and I would repeat that, in any case, even if the Amendments were carried, the Minister must exercise discretion. He has to make a selection from cases within the Clause as it ultimately emerges. He will not be given any more money, and in the circumstances he might very well mis-spend the money. Therefore, I think it better that we should make it quite clear in the statute that it is livestock land which will be improved under this Bill. In the circumstances, I hope hon. Members will not press the Amendments.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Fort: Having listened for some time to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, I am still not clear, first of all, about the word "predominantly," and am in even more difficulty over the words "material extent" with regard to dairy farming and other agri-


cultural activities. Towards the end of his remarks the Under-Secretary of State sounded as though he wished to encourage large farms already engaged in stock-raising and farms in areas where stock-raising is already going on.
I certainly understood from the Second Reading debate that the intention was to bring in areas which may in the past have been stock-raising areas, but which, owing to the attraction of the monthly milk cheque and the demand for milk over the last 15 years or so have now gone over largely to dairy farming. The hon. Gentleman's last remarks have certainly produced confusion in my mind, and perhaps also in the minds of other hon. Members of this Committee.
It seemed to me that the Under-Secretary did not deal with the point about the dual-purpose shorthorn so cogently put by my hon. Friend the Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden). In the area which I have the honour to represent, we have a large number of these animals, and there is no doubt at all that purely from the point of view of the geographical description in Clause 1 we would certainly come within the scope of this Bill. But my farmer friends in the district are greatly concerned as to whether the shorthorn raisers who are increasingly selling animals for beef purposes, are going to be able to get any benefit at all under the Clause as it has been interpreted so far in this debate.
I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman replies we shall hear from him a statement of the sort of percentages of profit from milk which he has in mind in instructing his county committees when they are having a look at the words "to any material extent." As I say, I hope we shall have some clear guidance on that point so that those of our farmers who are raising the dual-purpose shorthorns will have some idea how far they have to go before they can receive grants under this Bill.

Sir Harold Roper: So far, in this debate our discussions have been concerned with the north of the country, from Yorkshire up to Scotland. May I bring the Committee for a moment or two farther south to Devonshire and to the county which I represent, Cornwall? I am now speaking of land which is not

mountainous land like that of Scotland, but definitely high land which has always been regarded as livestock rearing land, and which runs to the height of 1,000 feet or so.
In recent years, a number of the farmers in that area have been trying to turn over to milk production because, as one hon. Member put it, the country has gone milk crazy at the present time. I am thinking of one farm in particular where the imported milk producer does not thrive, but where they find it possible to make milk production profitable by rearing their milk cattle on the spot in these exposed places. I shall be glad if the Minister will tell me whether the farms in these areas farther south, the land of which has always been regarded as livestock rearing land, will be included for the purposes of this Bill.

Mr. P. Roberts: As I understand it, this discussion has really two prongs to it. First, there is the definition of the type of land to which this shall apply. Secondly, there are the various provisions as to the product of the land. I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the geographical point—the type of land—at the moment. I refer to the word "heath." As far as I understand it, schemes can be submitted from lands which are neither hills nor mountains but are in fact heath.
That brings me to the brecklands of Norfolk, where there are miles of heath stretching from Sandringham in the north down to Thetford in the south. I have a farm in that area, but I hope I am not being influenced by the hope of pecuniary gain. In this land, which is sand, heath, pine and bracken, there are many acres which can be used for the production of beef. Much of this land has been ploughed up in the past under the ploughing grants and the Lime Subsidy Act, and much has continued to be ploughed up since the ploughing grants ceased. Whereas at the moment, it might be difficult for the Minister to say that this land was now "predominantly" or even "to any material extent" heath because of the ploughing that has taken place, nevertheless the character of the land remains the same.
I have an Amendment on the Order Paper, in page 2, line 28, after "heath," to insert "or has within the last fifteen


years been heath." The object of that Amendment is to ask whether he will take into account in making up these schemes the fact that this land has been ploughed up in the last three, four, or 10 years. My experience and that of most farmers who have dealt with this type of land is that there is hidden fertility in the soil which lasts for four, five, or six years. After that time one gets to the hard sand and flint and it may well be that the condition of the land is worse at the end of that period than at the start.
By modern methods of agriculture it is possible to maintain on this land herds for the production of beef, but it needs a great deal of capital to turn this heath-land in the Norfolk brecklands into cattle rearing land. There are some large farmers who have done it successfully, but it is practically impossible for the small farmer without help, because the capital needed for building, for fences and for shelter-belts is very great.
When I read the Bill I was unable to to come to a conclusion whether this type of land would be within the powers of the Minister or not. I am glad of this opportunity of putting a specific question to him. If schemes are put forward for land which either is heath now or was heath in the last 15 years in the brecklands of Norfolk, will he be able to approve them by the powers conferred upon him in this Clause? I hope his answer is, "Yes," because in support of this he will remember that his Ministry, through the Forestry Commission, have taken many acres of this land and have recently instituted proceedings to clear it. The reason given by his Ministry is that the land is so poor that it is only good for the growing of trees. Secondly, the War Office have claimed this land and have been successful in securing requisition of it because it is so poor that it is only useful for a battle-range or something of that kind.
Therefore, I suggest that we have evidence that this type of land needs the assistance that this Bill can give. In my experience, and in that of farmers in the area, if this land can be turned into useful land, by the use of lucerne, cocksfoot and kale, it is capable of producing store beef. I do not think it can produce fat cattle, but thousands of tons of beef can be produced from this land if farmers can get the help towards capital costs that this

Bill provides. I should like to ask the Minister whether I am right in assuming that this land comes within the definition which is before the Committee.

Mr. Spence: I hope that, when he comes to reply, the Minister will deal with the specific question put to him about the interpretation of the definitions in the Bill. I thought he assured us that the definitions applied to the Hill Farming Act were put into effect very widely, and that all lands capable of being developed and of a marginal character were included. He mentioned, too, that on certain islands lands are classified for development under the Hill Farming Act where the farms are nearly at sea level.
I should like to put a personal question relating to my constituency, where there is a great deal of this type of land, lying between agricultural land and the actual sea-shore. We have many square miles of of that land, north of the Don in Aberdeenshire, which have been proved by experiment to be capable of raising cattle. I should like to have the Minister's broad opinion whether such land would be eligible for a grant under the provisions of the Bill, provided the other conditions were fulfilled.
The purpose of the Bill is to increase livestock, and we all support that purpose. It should apply particularly to land where good results can be obtained, land such as this near the sea, where one gets away from the hard frost and snow in winter and it is possible to take the cattle right through. That cannot be done on hill land.

Mr. Dye: The debate on the Amendment centres round the question of the extent to which the boundaries of land which it is proposed to benefit by the Bill can be pushed further than hitherto. The hon. Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) has referred to land in the Eastern counties. I should have thought that the definition of a farm and the fact that a farm must be predominantly livestock rearing in character would preclude most of the brecklands. These brecklands consist of very large estates, and it would be practically impossible for a small farmer to make a living if his farm was predominantly livestock rearing.
4.30 p.m.
It is quite true that there are farms in that neighbourhood which have gone in for livestock rearing in recent years and have made a success of it. It is also true that for the best part of a century some of the best lambs were reared in that area. No doubt, it would be possible to do that again, but the successful farming of this land today is based on a much wider system, taking into account the growing of fruit, vegetables and asparagus, as well as a certain amount of dairy farming and a great deal of poultry farming. The very nature of the soil and the fact that the climate is on the dry side for a great deal of the year would make it difficult to breed livestock successfully, since a regular rainfall is required in order to Lye a plentiful supply of grass.
On the other hand, I do not think that the definition should be too tightly drawn, because in all parts of the country we need farmers to produce milk for the local inhabitants. We do not want all the milk which is produced locally to be sent away so that the producer has to say to his neighbours, "I cannot supply you with milk, however much you need it, because I have accepted a grant under this Act which prevents me selling it to you." I rather gather from what the Minister said earlier that it would be possible for farmers to supply their neighbours with milk.
I would remind the Committee of the milk shortage the year before last when, at great expense, we imported milk from Northern Ireland. It may be that conditions in the hill districts of Cumberland and Yorkshire—we do not want to go quite as far as Scotland—are favourable for producing milk when other parts of the country are short, and it would be wrong to prevent the farmers selling their milk to make up for that deficiency. It is silly of hon. Members opposite to talk about the country having gone "milk crazy." It is nothing of the sort. Our milk production policy has been very good indeed, and that is reflected in the better health of the nation. It is true that we need to supplement our milk supply with an adequate beef, pork and mutton supply, but it would be wrong to ask great numbers of farmers who have been

producing milk successfully, merely by inducing them to take a Government grant, to go back to the old system of cattle rearing.
I do not think that the Minister intends the definition to be too tightly drawn. It would be equally wrong, of course, to widen the boundaries in such a way that people all over the country would be seeking grants under this Measure, and it would involve a great deal of work in preparing schemes. I hope the schemes in the hill farming districts will be pushed ahead quickly so that we can look to those areas for a bigger and better supply of store cattle.

Mr. Lambert: I disagree with the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) when he says that he does not think this country has gone "milk crazy." All one has to do is to look at the present meat ration. The Minister himself said during the Second Reading of the Bill that there were between three and half and four million acres of livestock rearing land which, if they could be improved, would produce about 140,000 tons of beef a year. Would not everyone in the country welcome that at this moment?

Mr. Dye: That in no way contradicts what I said.

Mr. Lambert: I feel that if we had not devoted so much energy to encouraging farmers to produce milk on land which is far better used for rearing beef, things would be much better today. The Minister said that he had only sufficient money to provide improvements for a quarter of that land—about one million acres. I think he would be wise to ensure that the money is spent on the land that will give the quickest return. The present Secretary of State for War took a long-term view and spent £36 million on groundnuts. Had we got that £36 million now we could have developed all our livestock rearing land.
I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will make certain that some of the particularly fine livestock rearing land in Devonshire is utilised. I refer particularly to land at Okehampton, Hatherleigh and Holsworthy. Before the war beef cattle of a dual-purpose nature were raised there, and the farmer, to get ready money which he needed in those


days, sold a certain amount of butter. Now he cannot sell it; owing to our economic system it would be uneconomic for him to do so. I feel that although to a certain extent those farmers are going over to the production of milk, it would be most unwise in the national interest, to produce beef as quickly as possible, not to include them within the scope of this provision. I hope we may have an assurance from the Minister that the land which is suitable in Devon, between Dartmoor and Exmoor, will qualify for the grant.

Mr. Vane: The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland began his speech by saying that he did not think there was much between him and hon. Members who had supported various Amendments; but as he went on, it appeared that whereas a number of hon. Members who had spoken supported those Amendments wholeheartedly, he was standing on exactly the opposite side. There is a great deal between him and hon. Members on this side of the Committee. However, the hon. Gentleman made one point which we should bear in mind, and that is that wherever this line is drawn there will be certain ministerial discretion, and that we should try to leave the Clause in such a shape that that discretion is not exercised invidiously.
There are two tests as to whether any proposal for a scheme under the Bill will be excluded or not—first, as to the type of land, and, second, as to the type of farming. As to the type of farming, the trouble about the line which the Government have drawn here is that they are likely to exclude the best farmers in such areas as that mentioned by the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Scott). There may be several farms on very similar land, but the best farms are nearly always those which are rearing dual-purpose cattle and such cattle as pedigree shorthorns.
It would surprise some hon. Members to know how many high yielding pedigree cattle are reared on extremely high lying land. It may be that the Minister will argue that those are exceptional cases, but I think there are more of them than would justify treating them as exceptional cases. Before the Report stage the Minister should look into the wording of the Clause to see whether he can be cer-

tain that in these districts it is not the better farmers who will fail to qualify for this grant and the less progressive but, no doubt, equally worthy in other respects who will benefit.
On the question of improving sheds for cattle, surely the standard which the Minister will set will be the same whether the cattle are for breeding stores or for producing milk for sale. The sort of improvement carried out will be more or less the same in the end. I would suggest that the Minister looks again at the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), to see whether the use of words limiting this qualification to the sale of liquid milk or some similar words would not improve the drafting of the Clause.

Mr. Nugent: My name is on the Order Paper in support of one of the Amendments which would deal with the milk qualification in the Clause. I imagine that the reply given by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was intended to meet our anxieties, but it did not go very far in that direction. I congratulate him upon his courage in entering the discussion on the difficult problem of what is a dual-purpose animal and what it does. That has always been rather a confused matter and I must admit that by the time he had finished, it was still a confused matter. The fact is that where dual-purpose cattle were kept they would produce milk and also produce steers, but it is extremely improbable that they would be fattening animals.
The point I want to emphasise is this. Back in the 'thirties, and perhaps in the late 'twenties, those with stock-rearing land in such parts of the country as Wales, where stock-rearing was still being carried on for a living, were in very great difficulty and the result was that, as the Milk Marketing Board got going, in the 'thirties, those little farms gradually went into milk production. Now nearly all those farmers are making their living from milk production. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) brought out this point extremely well.
Those farms are potentially stock-rearing farms—[Interruption.] In connection with this farmyard atmosphere in the Chamber, I am reminded that the


Parliament Buildings in Northern Ireland have a farmyard alongside them. It struck me earlier how useful it would be to go out and have a practical demonstration of dual-purpose cattle, but we are getting a practical demonstration already.
The point I was making was that those farms in the upland areas which used to be stock-rearing farms are now used for milk production; the farmers are making their living in that way. A great many of the farms could usefully be employed rearing a certain number of beasts, but as the Bill is now drawn none of them will be able to come within the scope of it. I believe the right hon. Gentleman intends to interpret the Bill liberally. I hope he does, because I am sure that this is a potentially productive beef producing area. If the Minister will make it possible for these farms, at present to a considerable extent dependent on their milk production, to benefit by the Bill so that they can improve their buildings and go in for a little stock-rearing, I am sure we shall get additional cattle from that land.
If the reply is that because there is only £20 million available it is not possible to extend the Bill beyond the very limited extent indicated by this qualification about milk, then I must bow my head to that decision. Nevertheless, I think we should point out that the former stock-rearing areas of the country have now gone into milk production and that if we want to resuscitate those stock-rearing areas this Bill will not do it; it will need a more generously framed Measure. I hope that within the limits of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman will be as liberal as possible in his administration.

4.45 p.m.

Sir T. Dugdale: I find myself in the same position as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane), who said that the Joint-Under Secretary of State for Scotland had remarked at the beginning that he doubted whether there was very much between the two sides of the House but who, as he continued his speech, seemed to become more confused all the time.

Mr. T. Fraser: I was merely agreeing with what had been said by the hon.

Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), who doubted very much whether there was much between us. I said that, since hon. Members on both sides were anxious to support the passage of the Bill, that was probably so, and I went on to show that if hon. Members wanted the Minister to be selective in his approval of schemes, they could best assist in that by leaving the wording of the Bill as it is. Further, I pointed out that if the words were amended to widen the discretion it would make it much more difficult for the Minister to be selective.

Sir T. Dugdale: I quite agree with the principle of that, but we are becoming more confused all the time, and my purpose is to try to reconcile the various speeches that have been made and to ask the Minister to look at the wording of the Bill again. The two Amendments of the many which are down in my name, together with the names of other hon. Members, propose to eliminate the term "dairy farming" and insert in its place "milk for sale liquid." We think that is a very different thing because our conception of this scheme, if it is to be a success, is herds of dual-purpose dairy cattle becoming the nursery for the stock rearing farms in the lower parts of the country as well as the reservoir of heifer calves to go to the dairy herds, as suggested by one of my hon. Friends.
If we can help these upland areas, and indeed the hill areas, to produce more steer calves to join the beef herds and more heifer calves to join the dairy herds, I think we shall have accomplished what we seek to accomplish, and this will then be an extremely useful Measure. Several hon. Members have referred to the fact that this cannot all be done in a day and that there have been certain areas in the country where, during the last 20 years, the whole emphasis has been on an increase in milk production. In those areas the economy of small farmers has been based upon milk production and it would be disastrous if, through the operation of the Bill, they were to be cut off overnight.
I think that is a real danger unless the words of the Clause are widened by the Minister before the Bill becomes an Act. I think my hon. Friends will agree on this point: we do not in any way wish to encourage an extension of milk produc-


tion in the upland areas, but we do want to enable those whose economy is based on milk production to continue their business and gradually to turn not only to producing milk but also to producing the steer calves which will eventually become beef and will help our meat ration.
For that purpose I want to ask the Minister two specific questions. Will he give the Committee the assurance that, if the improvements in any particular scheme will increase the livestock rearing capacity of the farm but are not likely to increase milk production, they should be accepted? That is one of the principles which I hope he will accept. The other question I should like to put is this. There are farms, and there will continue to be farms, which still sell a considerable quantity of milk to the Milk Marketing Board, as liquid milk, and I gather that, under the Clause, those farms will probably not benefit from the Bill. I want to ask the Minister to what extent a farmer may carry on the sale of liquid milk and yet be eligible for grants under the Bill. Has he any figure to send out to his committees as advice to them in deciding whether they should select or turn down any improvement schemes?
It is has been put to me from certain parts of the country that there are certain areas where, if those who produce milk are excluded, it will cause very great hardship indeed. The question has been put to me, would it not be possible for the Minister, in the directions he sends to the committees, to indicate that they may make a wider interpretation in certain areas than they do in others? I perfectly understand that that would be quite impossible for the Minister to do, because he must send out a general directive to those who are to be responsible for approving the schemes a general directive on the lines upon which they are to work.
If, however, the Bill is to be the success we hope it will be, we hope that the Minister will see his way before the Report stage, before we conclude our discussions on the Bill, to widen the phraseology in this Clause and make it abundantly clear that, whilst we do not want to increase milk from those particular areas, we want to help those who are at present engaged in producing a limited supply of milk gradually to turn over to

producing beef and store cattle for the beef herds of the country.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I think it would be as well, perhaps, if I recalled to hon. Members the content of Clause 1 (3,a). Lots of questions have been put during the debate as to what is or ought to be in this subsection. The definition here was designed strictly in accordance with the terms of the Hill Farming Act, 1946, and, I think, is beyond any state of confusion of mind except that confusion that is natural and with which we sympathise. It says:
(a) the expression 'livestock rearing land' means land situated in an area consisting predominately of mountains, hills or heath, being land which is, or by improvement could be made, suitable for use for the breeding, rearing and maintenance of sheep or cattle but not for the carrying on, to any material extent, of dairy farming, the production … of fat sheep or fat cattle or the production of crops …
It seems to me there is only one cause for hesitation or doubt there in that definition, and that is the expression "to any material extent." I do not think "predominantly" is in doubt, since it is clear that by that must be meant the major part of the farming undertaking, and that is and always has been contended.
Hon. Members will agree with me, I am sure, when I recall to their minds that we are not without experience, since we have been operating the Hill Farming Act for some years now. We have our Hill Farming Advisory Committee, on which are represented hill farmers in various parts of the country, and we have the county executive committees, almost all of them with one or more representatives of the hill farmers; and there has been a sympathetic approach to the acceptance of schemes. It has been our desire that improvement schemes should be introduced. It has been our desire to help every applicant, and the fact that the whole of the £4 million made available for the purpose has been absorbed by schemes is a fair indication that we have administered the schemes not only reasonably but, indeed, very sympathetically.

Sir H. Roper: Could we have a clearer definition of the intention in the use of the word "hill"? The expression used is "hills or heath," not "high heath land."

Mr. Williams: That is exactly what the subsection says—


… predominantly of mountains, hills or heath. …
I think that on Second Reading I explained that under the Hill Farming Act, 1946, we interpreted that to mean "high hills"—if you will. This Bill is to extend the same sort of improvement schemes, but slightly farther down the hills.
The only other object was not to encourage, as some hon. Members today have suggested, including the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), the production of milk, but really the production of livestock. Now, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton wanted us rather, I thought, among some of what he termed the "smaller farmers" in the hilly areas, to allow milk to remain primary. He quoted the case of a person who had an income of £900 from milk and £300 from other sources. He thought that that was the right kind of person to encourage. That is strictly beyond the pale of this Bill.

Mr. Turton: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to get this clear? I think, too, that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was under a misapprehension on this point. The argument I am addressing to the Minister is that is frequently the case in the upland areas that it is a derelict farm that finds the production of milk useful during the stage of rehabilitation, and that, as the Minister is at present administering the Hill Farming Act, and as, I gather, he proposes to administer this Bill, he debars the most derelict farms from livestock, while the larger farms will get the benefit.

Mr. Williams: I beg to differ from the hon. Member. It has not been so, and will not be so, either. I am going to try to give the hon. Member what, I think, are fair reasons for the view we take. The hon. Member also said that, if we pursued this policy, it would be dangerous. I cannot see how it could be dangerous for the Government to give anybody who qualifies for a grant 50 per cent. of the money expended on improvement. There cannot be much danger in that. There may be a difference of opinion with one particular farmer, but nothing dangerous in it from the Government's point of view, if we are putting £20 million into the schemes.

Mr. Turton: Dangerous for the country in not getting meat as a result of the Minister's policy.

Mr. Williams: If the hon. Member has been asleep since 1947 I can only sympathise with him. He has not yet awakened to the fact that we have—well, I would not be certain about the numbers, but over a million more cattle than in 1939, when his Government were in office—over one million more cattle in this country today than in 1939.

Mr. Snadden: And 15 per cent. less meat.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton says that our policy has failed. He cannot lay that at my door since, as he must know, thanks to the calf subsidy scheme we have reared, over the past three years, 400,000 more calves than would have been reared, perhaps, if a Government of his party had been in office. So that I do not quite see—

Mr. Turton: rose—

Mr. Williams: Do not let us have an argument about that, because I do not think that the hon. Member has a case that he could sustain either here or, indeed, anywhere else. What we are dealing with at the moment is a Bill in which the Government are offering inducements to people farming on hilly land to produce improvement schemes; and the taxpayer is willing to pay 50 per cent. of the total cost. "Predominantly" is, I think, the right word to use in this connection.
The hon. Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts), has an Amendment which refers to heath land, but he admits that for the past 15 years that particular type of land has been ploughed up and cropped.

Mr. P. Roberts: Some.

Mr. Williams: Ploughed up and cropped. If land, after improvement, is useful for cropping, then it does not come within the terms of the Bill. It does not come within the terms of subsection (3,a) since it could, to a very material extent, produce crops other than rearing livestock. The answer to the question he put to me directly, whether the sort of land in Suffolk which he described would come within the confines of this definition, is "No."

5.0 p.m.

Mr. P. Roberts: If heathland or heather and bracken is ploughed up and sown with the only things they will grow, and thereby maintains twice or three times as many head of cattle as before, surely that comes within the definition?

Mr. Williams: I think I have explained very clearly that it was never intended that it should; that we were merely extending the Hill Farming Act by coming still further down the hillside. If we were to include the sort of land the hon. Gentleman thinks we ought to include, it is clear that little or no money would be left for hill farming, since there is heathland in every country and we should miss the very purpose for which we set out to improve typical livestock rearing land.

Mr. Roberts: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's argument, but surely there should be some Amendment to the third line of this subsection, because it quite clearly says it is land which is either mountains hills or heath. It refers here to land which is heath, and it is that which led me to put down my Amendment. If the Minister's intention is that it shall be a small hill of some kind he should say so. What he says, in fact, is that any land which is heath comes within the Clause.

Mr. Williams: I have already explained that if, after improvement, that land is capable to any material extent of producing other crops it falls outside the terms of this definition.

Mr. Roberts: No, it comes within it.

Mr. Williams: Well, that is the interpretation we place upon it, and it is beyond argument.
The hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) asked whether we had in mind any percentage when we say that a person who is producing milk or processing milk into butter, cheese or cream would not be disqualified from an improvement scheme merely on that account so long as that part of his undertaking was not the major part. We have not in mind any fixed percentage, such as 31, 32 or 33 per cent. We try to apply common sense through the county executive committees, with the advice and guidance of the Hill Farming Advisory Committee. They know in every case whether or not the rearing of live-

stock is the major or minor part of the undertaking, and if livestock rearing is clearly the major part it obviously qualifies for a grant.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland made it perfectly clear—although it seems to have been misunderstood, at least by hon. Gentlemen opposite—that if milk production for the processing of milk forms the major part of a farmer's undertaking, but he does do some livestock rearing, then it is not impossible for him to put up a scheme for the improvement of that part of his farm which is devoted to livestock rearing. It may very well be that some part of his scheme, perhaps roads, bridges, or something like that, could not be undertaken in a minor scheme of that description.
But if the farmer decided, later, to change from milk production to more and more livestock rearing, then any part of the first scheme that was not complete and perhaps could be completed under a subsequent scheme once he had gone back and made livestock rearing the major part of his undertaking—

Mr. Vane: And if he did the reverse?

Mr. Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman mean if he now does livestock rearing and goes into milk production?

Mr. Vane: Yes.

Mr. Williams: He does not get a grant, that is all.

Mr. Vane: But if he changes later, do the Government take it back?

Mr. Williams: I hope there is still a bit of honesty among the farming community. I should think that even in Westmorland there are some elements of honesty yet.

Mr. Vane: This is not a joke but a very serious point, because types of farming change. What happens in the course of time is that a man keeping store cattle or breeding cattle may, not with any wish to be dishonest in any way, transfer to dairy cattle, perhaps because of road improvements or a change of tenancy.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman will readily understand that if a person who has put forward a scheme and contributed 50 per cent. of the total cost of a scheme feels disposed, a few years later, to return to milk production, or some


form of farming other than livestock rearing, there is nothing we can do about it. I do not see what we can do about it, unless we import into the Bill some sort of repressive Clause in case that contingency arises. I should not like to import that into the Bill.
The hon. and gallant Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Dugdale), asked me several questions. First, he asked whether an improvement grant could be made available where it could be shown that the improvement would be an improvement in the livestock rearing side of the farm. I think I have just answered that. Second, he asked what could be the proportion of milk production on any such farm where an improvement scheme was desired. I could not give him a percentage. We should have to take all the circumstances into account. It may very well be in the 'forties or it may be in the 'thirties according to the circumstances of the particular farm. If the major part of the undertaking were livestock rearing nothing could disqualify him from applying for and obtaining a grant.
A good deal has been said about milk production, and perhaps I ought to say, if only to clear the minds of hon. Members, why the Bill does not set out to assist in the production of milk. The reasons are very simple. First, milk production has already passed the target we set for it even for 1952. It is, therefore, not necessary to stimulate the production of milk in the uplands, particularly as much of this land is wholly unsuited to milk production in any case.
Second, milk producers benefit to a much greater extent than the producers of store stock from guaranteed prices and assured markets. In particular, a substantial proportion of the increase in milk prices in 1947 was intended to provide capital for the improvement of dairy farms. Small milk producers were not forgotten, for they received substantial assistance in 1950 in the shape of an increase of 1½d. on the bonus payable on the first 400 gallons sold in each of the winter months. I agree that this was to compensate them to some extent for the increased cost of feedingstuffs.
Third, if farms which are primarily milk producing were included in the

scope of would increase substantially the area of eligible land, and increase the competition for the limited sums of money available. While the farm primarily engaged in milk production will not normally qualify for grants under the Bill. The words "to any material extent" assure that a person producing some milk will not necessarily be debarred from enjoying the grant.
The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) was quite right when he said that there are only two tests under the Bill. First, the type of land, and, second, the type of farming. I think that in all the circumstances, and particularly in view of the fact that we have already passed our milk target for 1952, and that our meat supplies are so short, it is the duty of the Committee to concentrate on a far greater production of meat from our own acres. That is exactly what the Bill is designed to do. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will agree that we are trying to do this fairly and squarely.

Mr. P. Roberts: So far as I can see, the Bill does not say what the Minister intends. If he looks at the benefits under the First Schedule of the Hill Farming Act, he will see set out quite clearly that what could happen under this Bill is the removal of bracken followed by reseeding and regeneration of grazing or the laying down of permanent pasture. That is a scheme which must come within the scope of the Bill. Therefore, I put it to him again that if there is heath land which could be regenerated by putting it down to permanent pasture, which would improve it for the benefit of rearing cattle, it would come within the definition which we are now discussing. It may be that it is not the intention of the Minister that it should do so, but I think that any lawyer, looking at this Clause, would advise his client that what I have said could happen. Surely it is not the intention of the Minister to waste the time of farmers by their, having to put in claims which are obviously permissible under the Bill but not in the intention of the Minister. What is the point of making application to put down to permanent pasture heath land if it does not come within the terms of the Bill?
I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this matter again. I hope that he will not be influenced by the hon.


Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye), who tried to deny his constituents these benefits, because I can assure him that there are a large number of small farmers in West Norfolk who urgently need this assistance, and who could produce cattle on very bad land—land which the Ministry has already said is sub-marginal—and which, in fact, is heath land. I ask the Minister to reconsider this matter because, otherwise, it will lead to frustration and disquiet in that part of Norfolk and Suffolk to which I have already referred.

Mr. Williams: I wholly disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The Hill Farming Act has been in operation for four years, and I have never had a complaint from Suffolk or Norfolk. The definition in Section 1 (3) of the Hill Farming Act, 1946, states that hill farm land means "mountains, hills and heath," almost exactly the same words as we use in this Bill. Therefore, where is the confusion, except in the mind of the hon. Member?

Mr. Roberts: There is a great difference between "and" and "or."

Mr. Grimond: In view of the assurance given by the Minister that the Bill will be interpreted reasonably widely, and that, in particular, it will deal with the poorer land, of whatever altitude—

Mr. Roberts: It does not.

Mr. Grimond: I understand that it does. Even if it is of low altitude, it will still come within the Bill. Because of that and because where, on a farm, there is an area of livestock rearing land within the interpretation of the Bill the farmer may put up a scheme with some chance of success, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. York: I beg to move, in page 2, line 32, to leave out from "extent," to "of," in line 33.
The purpose of this Amendment is to allow the production of fat sheep in particular and also of fat cattle off the hills. If the Amendment were accepted, the Clause would read:
For the carrying on, to any material extent, of dairy farming, the production, to any

material extent, of crops in quantity materially greater than …
I think it is clear from that that the purpose which I have in mind is to allow the continuance—and it is a continuance—of the present practice in some upland areas of fattening lambs and grading them in the nearest market. I have a particular interest in this matter, because, in my former constituency, I was instrumental in setting up a grading centre. The effect of that was to produce meat straight off the hills and a number of farmers in that dale would be excluded from the benefits of the Bill as it now stands.
I suppose that the guiding words are "to any material extent," and perhaps the Minister may have something to say upon that matter which may set my mind at rest. It seems to me to be a retrogressive step to cut out from any help under this Bill the more progressive farmers in the hill areas. It is obvious that only the more progressive and better farmers are able to produce, to any material extent, fat lambs off the hills.
In the Second Reading debate, it was made quite clear by the Minister that he wanted quick returns. He referred to the Hill Farming Act, 1946, when he said:
This land is often of intrinsically better quality and more favourably situated than hill farming land.
Later, he said:
If we are … to increase the output of meat,
and, in the next column, said:
One can readily envisage the possible loss of 750,000 acres of land. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1950; Vol. 482, c. 822–44.]
These three quotations make it quite clear to me that the Minister has in mind the quick increase in meat production, and yet, in the wording of the Bill, he is cutting out the production of direct meat to the market from the hills. I think that the Committee will agree wih me that that is certainly a retrogressive step. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept the Amendment and allow the continuance of the fattening of lambs direct to grading centres. If that is encouraged, then, in due course, there will be the fattening in summer of some of the beef or dual-purpose steers which will be reared on these farms.

Mr. Scott: I am glad to have the opportunity to support this very valuable Amendment. I am very worried about the words "fat sheep." It seems to me that in drafting the Clause, particularly the definition of livestock rearing land, it has been forgotten that high land and heather land are capable of producing fat lambs in summer time. For a long time, particularly in some parts of Northumberland, Cumberland and Yorkshire, it has been the custom to take lambs from the ewes as soon as they are weaned straight to the fat stock market, or nowadays to grading.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. York) has said, arrangements have been made by the Ministry of Food to take in these lambs at the grading centre. It may seem an extravagant thing to do, but it will be appreciated on further consideration that it is a very economical and quick way of producing mutton and lamb for the country, for the simple reason that little extra food is needed and the long process of fattening is avoided. If the Clause is allowed to stand as it is, it will mean that this valuable source of mutton will be missed. I hope that the matter will be regarded sympathetically by the Government.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): I think we are tending to get away from the main purpose of the Clause. It is indulging in a good deal of obvious exaggeration to say that if the Clause is allowed to go through unamended this source of mutton will be lost. It has, after all, been applied to hill farming for some little time. It is an obvious exaggeration to say that this Clause will stop the practice which has grown up because we are extending it to a different sort of land and, therefore, increasing the amount of Government assistance. We are not stopping the fattening of lambs and sheep on the hills, and we are not stopping the fattening of lambs and sheep lower down the hillside. We are extending a special measure of Government assistance to those forms of livestock production which do not directly benefit from the guaranteed prices and assured markets.

Mr. Turton: The Parliamentary Secretary is telling us that this is in the Hill

Farming Act. Can he tell us in which section it is to be found? I cannot find it—it is an entirely new definition to me.

Mr. Brown: I think not. We will have a look at it, and if I am wrong I will withdraw. I am quite certain that the Hill Farming Act never applied these grants to land used for fattening sheep straight off the land.

Mr. York: I can take the Parliamentary Secretary to a number of farms in Nidderdale where both the hill farming subsidies are obtained and fat lambs are sent to the grading centre.

Mr. Brown: I think we are mixing up hillfarming grants with hill cattle subsidies. I am not dealing with that at all. However, I am making inquiries to see whether there has been any change in practice, although I do not think that is the case. In any case, it does not affect my point.
The main part of the argument is that the farmer who sells fat sheep gets the direct benefit of guaranteed prices and assured markets, whereas the farmer who raises lambs and passes them on to someone else does not get the same benefits. Therefore, special assistance is needed for him, and it is for that limited purpose that we are introducing this extension. It can always be argued that there are farms where the one runs into the other, but I do not think there is any difficulty, in practice, in deciding whether the main purpose is rearing or fattening. In any case, it can be settled locally by the committee. Therefore, I do not think there is any difficulty in deciding that kind of borderline case, that is to say, that the main function is not fattening but rearing. The intention will always he to admit that particular holding.
In general, we have not the money available, nor would it be regarded as desirable, to extend this special assistance to farms that have the direct benefit of guaranteed prices and assured markets. I think that we are right to limit it to those farmers who, because they are on land that is exceptional for rearing, have not the same guarantees.

Mr. Turton: Can we have the results of the researches by the Parliamentary Secretary?

Mr. Brown: I am assured that the answer is that the substance of what I


said is perfectly correct, that under Section 1 of the Hill Farming Act land that produces fat sheep and fat cattle is not necessarily disqualified for grants. Therefore, what I said about this being a continuous practice stands.

Mr. York: The only point is whether we are spending money on a method likely to produce any results in the lifetime of some of us here. I have offered a solution to the Government that I consider will produce meat in a greater quantity in a shorter time. The Government have rejected that, and I record that they have rejected it. As I understand that They intend insisting upon their reactionary point of view, the only thing I can do is to beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. P. Roberts: I beg to move, in page 2, line 33, to leave out from "cattle," to the end of line 35.
The reason I put this Amendment down is to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he would look at the words which I am asking should be left out; this sentence, in other words, is the definition of "arable farming." To my mind the definition is not clear, and if it is followed to its logical conclusion it will have the effect of penalising the good and efficient farmer. May I explain how I arrive at that? Here, we are defining land by saying, first, how many cattle shall be produced on it; and, second, how much food shall be produced on it. There are these two factors. First, the number of cattle; second, the amount of food to be grown on the land.
What I should like to ask the Minister is: How does he propose exercising his powers? How many cattle will he decide can be kept to an acre? Assuming that 20 steers are kept on 10 acres, then obviously the amount of food grown on that farm would not be sufficient to maintain that number of steers. If, on the other hand, the number of steers was five, it might be possible to bring the farm within the definition. Obviously, then, it depends on how many cattle are on the farm. The only logical way the Minister can do this is to decide roughly how many steers or sheep can be kept per acre on a farm. Once he has done that, the eligibility of the farm then

depends on how much food is grown on that farm, and that depends on its efficiency.
Let us look at an example. If there is a farmer on hill land who makes application, the Minister will say that to qualify there should be a certain number of head of cattle or sheep. Then he will look at the production from that land, which may be very small, and see how much is given over to food production. This may be a very efficient farmer. For instance, experiments are being carried out for the production of lucerne, both in Holland and in this country. It has been shown that by using six to seven cwt. of artificial manure to the acre, as much as four to five tons of silage or hay can be obtained. Assuming that the farmer efficiently increases the amount of food on his farm, that fact will be against him because he is now producing more food than the cattle can eat. But if he is a bad farmer, not putting artificial manure on his land and leaving his hay out, there is not enough food for the cattle to eat, and he will, therefore, qualify.
Also, assuming if he grows kale to feed his cattle, then he, is all right, but if he grows sugar beet or a catch crop which he sells off the farm there is not enough for his cattle to eat. Under this definition it will be practically impossible to decide between one farm on the side of a hill and another next door to it, each having the same number of sheep and head of cattle. One will not get a grant because by growing an extra amount of fodder he does not come within the definition in the Clause; while another farmer, less efficient, will get the grant, because he does come within that definition. Is that the intention? I wonder if the Minister would look at it again to see if the definition could not be better expressed so that a clear line can be given to the farmers who have to make an application.

Mr. T. Fraser: I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment because, if carried, it would make the Clause look ridiculous. It would mean that we would exclude—

Mr. Roberts: I think I have made clear what I wanted. I am asking for an explanation of these words; I want a clear statement.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman apparently does not want us to accept his Amendment; he merely wants an explanation. Surely he has imagined arable land being used for the advantage of production and the crop being sold off the farm. I think it was made quite clear, earlier, that it would be the intention of the Minister that the committee, in administering the scheme, would of course, approve of a scheme where the crops grown on the farm were mainly used for consumption on it, including the feeding of livestock being reared on that farm.
If, as the hon. Gentleman imagined, it is possible to produce crops in very great quantities so that a considerable part of the farm's income comes from the crops produced on this land, it would be inappropriate that a grant should be made under the provisions of the Clause towards the purchase of fertilisers for carrying out that work, which might be necessary for improvement in the production of crops from the land.
The committees concerned will, we believe, display considerable common sense in interpreting the instructions which will be given to them. They will not exclude the farmer, who has proved just a little more efficient than his next door neighbour in making use of his low-lying land. They will exercise common sense and not exclude a man because of his efficiency. In view of the explanation given I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Roberts: The undertaking which has been given by the Under-Secretary meets the point which I made, that in the administration of the scheme if a man is efficient in producing extra quantities of fodder he will not have that held against him. That is the only point I wanted to make, and as it has been answered I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Hurd: I beg to move, in page 2, line 35, at the end, to insert:
or in compliance with a cropping programme requested by the Minister in the national interest.
When I read the report of the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill—I was in the country at the time when the Bill was debated—I was concerned to find that

the Minister had, it seemed, excluded downland farms from the terms of this Bill. As the Minister well knows, there are very large areas in the counties of Berkshire, Wiltshire and Dorset, which are typical stock-rearing lands and which need improvement in the way of hard roads, better cattle sheds and better cottages. Many of these farms are isolated farms where it is today difficult to keep content a good staff of labour because of the poor housing conditions and the lack of hard roads. There is scope for improvement on those farms, and they are typical stock-rearing farms.
This Amendment seeks to make it quite clear that although they are temporarily growing crops, they will not thereby be excluded from applying for grant to make improvements under this Measure. As the House will know the wheat acreage—and I am speaking particularly of Berkshire, Wiltshire and Dorset—has been greatly increased compared with pre-war days. Today the Minister of Agriculture appeals to farmers to maintain their acreage of wheat barley and they have responded well. If the Minister looks at the county figures, be will see that a large part of that increased output which is made in response to the national interest, is being grown on the chalk land. I am concerned to see that the powers under this Bill do not debar the granting of assistance to these farms, which are typical stockfarms. I am encouraged by the line the Minister took over the matter of milk, and I hope he will be prepared this afternoon to tell us that typical stock rearing downland farms can apply to get assistance under this Bill.

Mr. Hollis: I support the Amendment which my hon. Friend has moved with his customary clarity. All sides of the Committee have approached this Bill with every desire to understand what it means in every detail. We have had some difficulty in getting our minds clear on certain points. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to ascribe that fact to a natural deficiency on this side of the Committee but it cannot be denied that he, too, had made a certain contribution to the difficulty of understanding the subsection which we are now discussing.
When the right hon. Gentleman was defending the subsection, on three occasions he spoke of land being excluded


which was capable of doing various things. If hon. Members will look at the Bill they will see that the word used is not "capable" but "suitable," which is quite a different word. Land may be capable of being used for certain purposes without being really suitable. My hon. Friends and I are trying to draw attention to that matter at this moment. There are plenty of farmers who are growing wheat in response to the right hon. Gentleman's appeal where they otherwise would not be doing it. We want an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that they will not be penalised for their patriotism and that it will not be the case that where there may be two farmers side by side, one of whom has not responded to the appeal and the other has, the one who has not responded will receive money and the one who has responded will not receive money. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman wishes that to be the situation.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said that the Minister's discretion under the Bill should be as limited as possible, and he was also good enough to say that if the right hon. Gentleman had discretion how he should spend money he might misspend it. We are not so censorious of the right hon. Gentleman as is his colleague—perhaps it is the space between us that is responsible—but we do not think that the Bill can be made a success unless there is reasonable flexibility. We hope that the Minister will give us an assurance on this point.

Mr. John Morrison: There is considerable disappointment in the three counties that have been mentioned, because the Bill does not appear to cover them. I hope that the Minister will say that there is some hope for them.

Mr. Crouch: In the past, before the emergency of some 10 years ago, this type of land carried a lot of store cattle and was used for rearing purposes. The position today is that, as a result of the patriotism in answering the call that was made, a lot of store cattle have to be brought from very long distances from the north of England. We ask that the Minister should accede to our request that the land be used again for the purpose of rearing store cattle.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. G. Brown: The intention here is not that all the land which is ranched and not farmed properly, and does not carry store cattle, should come within the terms of the Bill. It really is stretching things to suggest that some of the land of which we have heard in Wiltshire, Dorset and even the downland—which I know quite well from walking over it in recent years many times—is only suitable, after improvement, for raising store cattle. That is to do both the land and those who farm it considerable injustice. The land in Wiltshire, about which we heard from the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. J. Morrison) and in Dorset, referred to by the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch), will produce crops, and very good crops.
It is ridiculous to suggest that this land needs the direct benefit of the livestock rearing grant which is intended for land only suitable for the raising of store cattle and store sheep. As to the down-land, it is perhaps a little nearer to marginal land than those other areas, but not much. On the downland I walked over last year and the year before, I have seen magnificent crops of wheat growing. If that land were to attract this sort of grant there would be a whole lot of the Midlands and of Derbyshire which it would be very difficult to leave out.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite are trying to import something into the Bill which the Bill is not intended to do. The Bill is intended to make grants available for the rehabilitation of marginal land contiguous to and in the neighbourhood of hill farm land which, even after improvement, will be suitable only for carrying on the rearing of store sheep and store cattle. All that other land, as we know quite clearly, is able to do an altogether different job, to grow magnificent crops. For this reason I suggest that the Government are right in resisting the admission of this land to the Bill.

Mr. Hurd: I cannot let the Parliamentary Secretary get away, after airing his views about the downland country, without some little correction. The Parliamentary Secretary has no doubt seen fertile stretches of the three counties, but there are many thousands of acres of poor stuff which are only fit for stock rearing. If the Minister wants more livestock rearing in this country we should admit them


within the terms of the Bill. We shall be very disappointed in the South-West counties, on the chalk lands, if the Minister does not agree with our point of view that we there have a reservoir for the rearing and breeding of the healthy livestock which this country urgently needs to develop.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I should like to say a further word on this point. The remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary were exceedingly sweeping. We do not get such great stretches of territory all capable of producing the same value of commodity.

Mr. Brown: That is, of course, true. There is a difference between what one stretch of land and another will produce. That is true all over England and Wales, but it has nothing to do with marginal land.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I submit, with diffidence, that it has to do with marginal land. That is exactly what marginal land is, land where we get a difference between land which can continuously produce crops and land which cannot continuously do so. That is where we get the margin. It is most accentuated on those downlands. If we seek to work them intensively, as we have done in the past, they can carry crops such as the Minister described and said he had seen, particularly, I suppose, during the war. The land is worked out, and is no longer fit for anything except the minimum of stock raising. That is exactly what marginal land is.
I am certain that if the hon. Gentleman will consult his county committees they will be able to show him areas coming within his definition of marginal land in the middle of good productive land which would not, and would never be intended to, attract this grant. The hon. Gentleman has made far too sweeping a statement and I hope that he will be persuaded to reconsider the matter in the interests of production, because by a little ingenuity and a little extension of the principle he will be able to attract a far greater degree of production to the agricultural industry than if he leaves out all these possibilities.

Mr. Hurd: I am far from satisfied with the attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary, but, in order that we may

get on with the Bill, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Hugh Fraser: An important matter is the flexibility of the administration which the Minister and his colleagues seem to contemplate. We believe that at least in one thing he has made a considerable advance, and that is in the question of the comprehensive nature of these schemes. Whether he said it on purpose or not, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is now on record as saying that there can be variation in these schemes where there is a mixed economy in certain upland farms, that is to say, where part of the farm is engaged in livestock rearing pure and simple and part in milk. He said that in these circumstances grants could be made to the livestock rearing section of the farm. We consider that at least some advance on what we were told before.
The Minister will remember that during his Second Reading speech he went into some detail on the necessity for making the schemes comprehensive. We are glad that there has been this improvement. But hon. Friends of mine from all parts of the country have pointed very clearly to the immense variety which must exist in dealing with any farming of this sort. They have included hon. Members from the vales of Yorkshire, the downlands, and the heath land. In all these cases there may be a possibility of an extension of the grant in order to raise our livestock figures even faster than they are being raised now. There was also the question of the dairy shorthorn and the dairy shorthorn cross. It is apparent that for the moment the Bill must be something of an experiment. Therefore, the greater the variety of experience which can be undertaken the better it will be. I feel certain that if at a later stage the Minister has to come for more money—if the Bill works—he will get it from a grateful nation: at least, grateful to his Department.
Another important thing is carrying the variation even further in administration. In considering these schemes, perhaps the Minister could turn his mind to making grants for certain features in individual


schemes at a higher rate than for others. We all know that in most of the schemes undertaken there is one salient characteristic which should be reinforced. It is often a pioneering activity. It may be a matter of a road or a fence or a matter of draining, and not all the 23 items which can be supported by Government grant.
We hope that, when looking at the Bill before the Report stage, the Minister will consider the possibility of varying the grant. He may say that that would be difficult to administer, but what has clearly emerged today is that more authority must be given to the agricultural executive committees in this matter, among other things, for speeding up the process. By the time the farmer has filled in the two forms, H.F. 24 and 25, and sent them to the Land Commissioner and they have gone to the Ministry and returned, a great deal of time has been wasted.
If the Minister gave more authority to the agricultural executive committees and the Land Commission he could expedite the schemes, because if they were administered locally there would be more probability of success and of more people coming forward. These people are often poorish farmers, not bad farmers but men without large resources, and the nearest thing to "feather-bedding" that most of them have experienced is a blizzard or a snowstorm. If such people could have a higher grant than the basic grant for certain critical items in a scheme, such as fencing or a road, they would participate, whereas they might otherwise not do so.
The Minister may think that this is impracticable, but what happens about grants from the central authority to the road authority? Most roads get a varying grant over 55 per cent. In a grant-aided water scheme, his Ministry has authority to vary the grant considerably. Variation of grant is not a principle unknown to administration. I hope that the Minister will consider this. There seems to be in his speeches and the speeches of other hon. Members opposite a perhaps natural fear of the Treasury. I hope that because they have burnt their fingers over the groundnuts the Socialist Government will not freeze off their strong right arm of British agriculture by unnecessary parsimony in these matters.

Mr. Snadden: This is perhaps the most important Clause in the Bill and I want to support what has been said about the possibility of varying the grants. In these schemes we have to pay out a great deal of money on extremely expensive items. I have found that roads are probably the most expensive items, and it is apparent that roads are more important than anything else. If roads are not decent we shall not get labour to stay on a holding in the remoter parts of the country and grocery vans will not come up to the farms. It is also extremely difficult to get heavy lorries loaded with fertilisers and so on up to such farms.
We put down an Amendment, which was not called, in an attempt to secure a variation in the grant for these reasons. To find the other 50 per cent. to meet the cost of a road—it may run into thousands of pounds—may well be beyond the financial capacity of the farmer, unless he happens to be a millionaire, and I do not think many of them are left now. We have had a good discussion about the definition, but I am still far from clear whether or not certain land which I should regard as of an upland nature will be included in the Bill.
There are one or two points which I should like answered before we leave the Clause. Some anxiety has been expressed to me by those interested in the Bill in case the procedure adopted under the Hill Farming Act in regard to the size of holding should apply now. I put this question particularly to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. Under the Hill Farming Act, 1946, certain applications for improvement schemes were rejected by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland on the ground that the holding was too small and, therefore, not of an economic size.
That may have been justified in connection with that Act, and I supported the idea of the comprehensive scheme because I realised that we had to get enormous tracts of land into fertility, but under the Bill we are dealing with very much smaller units and men who probably have less money to throw about. I want to be quite certain that, in regard to selection, the smallholding and the small farm will not be ruled out in the same way as it was ruled out of the Hill


Farming Act. If the Minister can answer that point I shall be grateful.
6.0 p.m.
Another point was put to me which I could not answer and which I pass on to the Minister. What is the position of an owner who would be prepared to go to a great deal of trouble and expense in reclaiming land to be occupied in conjunction with the existing owner or let for grass or seasonal grazing? Would that rank for grant under this Clause? We can see that, if an economic value is too strictly applied, many upland farms with poor buildings and poor equipment may be ruled out in preference for other farms which have good equipment and which require little to be done for them in order to increase their stock rearing capacity. I hope that in the administration of this Clause we shall secure, through the considerable experience of the working of the Hill Farming Act, a proper uniformity of application. The agricultural executive committees will have great difficulty in eliminating discontent unless clear and uniform instructions are sent to them and each county applies the same yardstick.
In winding up the discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill I put a question to the hon. Gentleman but it was not answered. In Scotland an excellent survey has been made of a large section of the so-called marginal land. I asked if it would not be possible to complete that survey to include all of it, then to notify the people who rank for grant under this Bill, who are known to the agricultural committees. Then, if there were discontent about one man being ruled out and another coming in, they should be allowed to appeal to a tribunal to settle the question. In that way we should prevent a large number of Parliamentary questions and correspondence to the Departments, and we should have a clear-cut scheme which would go a long way towards making this Bill a success.

Mr. Vane: I do not imagine that any hon. Member is envious of the duty of the Minister under this Clause to try to distinguish between the man who is eligible for grant and the man who will not be eligible, although the right hon. Gentleman laid down the clear and fair principle that a farmer who is dependent to any great extent on his monthly milk cheque

will be on the wrong side of the dividing line. While the Minister was explaining that, I was perturbed by a possibly fresh injustice which appeared and which he did not treat with sufficient importance.
Imagine two equal farms, one equipped to sell milk and the other not. The second is eligible under this Bill to receive substantial grant aid towards bringing it up nearly to the same high standard of equipment as is necessary for the production of milk. There is no dishonesty whatever in that, although the Minister mentioned that word in the course of an earlier debate. It is the equipment that a stock rearing farm would need, and dishonesty does not come into the question. Then the farm changes its occupier and the new man wants to go in for milk, and the Minister says there is no way of meeting that situation. One dairy farm has been helped and another refused.
On the other hand, Clause 10 of the principal Act, which deals with the regulations governing the occupation of new and improved cottages, gives the Minister power, which I think is exercised, by which up to a period of 20 years after improvement has been carried out certain conditions must be fulfilled or the grant repaid. Will the Minister look into this question again? We are dealing with public money. We may wish the sum was a great deal larger and could, therefore, extend further, but we are only doing our duty if we see that this Bill contains reasonable safeguards.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) mentioned roads. These are more important to the dairy farm than to any other because milk lorries call at least once a day. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider what it costs to improve the farm roads? I believe his Department at the Royal Welsh Show last year had an exhibit which included the model of a section of a suitable road for a hill farm. Does the right hon. Gentleman remember the estimate of the cost of making up that road? It was £3 10s. a yard run, that is nearer £6,000 than £5,000 a mile.
It is perfectly possible under this Bill for the farmer who is producing milk not to get any aid towards the upkeep of his farm road, and for the next door farm perfectly honestly to get assistance on a substantial scale and then turn over to


milk. Will the Minister remember, too, that in days when most farmhouses and premises were sited in hill areas it was not the electric main or the main road which was considered important but shelter and local water supply. Therefore many of these premises lie a very long way away from the public road. If one thinks of the cost of repairing on a simpler scale than £3 10s. a yard run—

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Order. Where do roads appear in Clause 1?

Mr. Vane: Subsection 1 on page 1 of the Bill deals with the various works which can be carried out according to the first Schedule of the principal Act, Sir Charles. I was representing to the right hon. Gentleman that at the present moment there is a possible element of injustice, perhaps substantial, between farmer and farmer. I should like the Minister to look into that to see whether he cannot meet it, and whether he cannot distinguish between the items in the Schedule to the principal Act where 50 per cent. is not sufficient grant aid and those where 50 per cent. is over generous. We want to see that under this Bill money is not wasted but spent to the best advantage.

Brigadier Peto: I have felt extremely uncomfortable this afternoon because, for the first time since I have been in Parliament, I have been on the side of the Government throughout the debate on this Clause. I may be biased, but I have felt that this little Bill is intended to encourage beef and not milk.

Mr. T. Williams: Hear, hear.

Brigadier Peto: Having felt that extreme discomfort in my inner man, I thought I must declare it. I must complete my remarks by saying that if there were to be any fresh encouragement given to milk, it should only be given to clean milk and not to non-attested milk. Surely the national policy must be to encourage clean milk production and not to encourage small farms on hill land which have no facilities for producing milk of the required standard. They would do much better to return to beef production as they used to do.

Captain Duncan: I want to raise a point of selectivity because I have not been satisfied up till now, although I have listened in silence to what has gone on this afternoon, about the methods by which the Government will choose the schemes for acceptance. Some £20 million is allotted over the next five years. Will this be allotted by the Government at the rate of £4 million a year over the next five years? How is that to be divided between England and Scotland? And in Scotland how is the amount allotted centrally to be given to the counties? Is it to be "first come, first served"? If so, there will be an unholy rush to get in application forms. It seems to me to be a real administrative headache for His Majesty's Government. It is worth while asking the Minister to explain in greater detail how it is proposed to plan, within the limits set by the Bill, the schemes to be refused and accepted. I, like my hon. and gallant Friend, have been supporting in silence His Majesty's Government all this afternoon.
It seems to me that it would have been very much better, even if it meant narrowing the definition even more than it is narrowed now, not to have any selectivity at all—that, provided the schemes met the terms and conditions of the Bill, every scheme should be accepted. After all, if we run short of money, it may not be the right hon. Gentleman who would have to come back to the House to ask for more; it might be my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Dugdale) and as far as we on this side are concerned such a proposal would have our unanimous support.

Mr. Turton: I have been asked to raise what I think is an important point. Grants are to be made in 50 per cent. of cases to landowners and not to the tenants. The qualifications limiting the grants are the standard of farming of the tenant. What is the position where the landlord lays down to his tenant a certain type of farming practice which would have entitled him to a grant under the Clause, but where the tenant on his own initiative makes a tenant's improvement, approved or not approved under the Agricultural Holdings Act, connected with milk farming, and thereby prevents the landowner from getting a grant for his land? In that case, would the Minis-


ter allow the livestock rearing plan of the landlord to proceed, and if so, how?

Mr. P. Roberts: I must support my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan), in what he said. We have put into the hands of the Minister some £20 million to be distributed by him. As far as I can see, the farmer has in fact no right to receive any of this money. It is entirely in the hands of the Minister, and everything depends upon him and his advisers. That is not a good precedent. Surely the better way would be to increase the price of beef, to make quite certain that those who submit claims which conform to the provisions laid down will have their claims met.

Mr. T. Williams: It would be regarded as discourteous if I failed to make one or two observations in reply to the submissions that have been made. The hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser), referred to the word "comprehensive." I am sure he is aware that two committees have dealt with this question. The Earl De La Warr Committee and the Lord Balfour of Burleigh Committee have both laid very strong emphasis upon the necessity for every scheme, if a scheme was called for, to be comprehensive enough to ensure that the land would be brought up to a stage which would be worthy of the money spent upon it. That really is all that we can ask for.
The hon. Member spoke also of the possibility of varying grants for any one of the 23 items. I do not know whether he has thought out the implications of this. It might involve a special schedule fixing a particular percentage or price for each one of the 23 items. If that was not so, then clearly comparisons between scheme and scheme and between county and county would be so odious as to make the thing almost unworkable. Furthermore, delay would be caused if we had to decide whether a scheme was worth 572 per cent., 521 per cent., or whatever the percentage might be. If we were to accept any suggestion on those lines, we should be blown off this Front Bench by Questions about the wretched delay in getting things through. We are not submitting ourselves to that sort of thing.
The hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) referred to the cost of roads.

Of course, the making of roads is excessively costly. The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) asked whether I recalled the example at the Ministry's exhibit at the Royal Show. Of course I do. I am not sure exactly what the cost of making a road would be, because conditions vary enormously farm by farm and area by area, but I do know this. If we start to allocate a particular percentage for roads or for some other one of the 23 items, then, quite obviously, if we lift the price for one, we reduce it for the others. It seems to me therefore, not only for purposes of administration but in equity, that to give a block grant of 50 per cent. for all the items necessary to produce rehabilitation is the best and most equitable scheme.
6.15 p.m.
The hon. Member for Westmorland, curiously enough, whilst making those observations, was thinking of something else. He found a "fresh" injustice. Where is the first injustice? I cannot for the life of me see where any injustice arises when the Government are giving a 50 per cent. grant of the total cost of a scheme. There may be an apparent difference in the treatment between farmer and farmer, but there cannot be any injustice so long as we are making a grant for an improvement scheme. I quite understand what the hon. Member means, but it cannot be an injustice. There could be an apparent difference between two farmers with land that is either comparable or slightly different. What we try to do is to be as humane and as reasonable as we can, since we are anxious that improvement schemes shall be undertaken to the extent of the money which is made available.
The hon. and gallant Member for Devon, North (Brigadier Peto), with his usual good sense, agreed with the Government. He, at least, had read the heading of the Bill and knew that it was intended for livestock rearing. It is not a milk producing Bill at all. The hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan), asked how the money was to be distributed to Scotland, England and Wales. One thing which is certain is that Scotland will get her share, and if I am not sadly mistaken, from a good deal of experience, Scotland will get a little more than her share.
The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) asked a question which may arise between a landlord and tenant. I am afraid that it would remain a question for the landlord and tenant to resolve themselves, but so far as we or those responsible for approving schemes are concerned, it would be a question, not of what the landlord or the tenant thought, but of the suitability of the land. I hope that I have dealt with the various points—

Mr. Snadden: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer my question about the size of holdings?

Mr. T. Williams: In Scotland that is a question for the Scottish Office, and presumably they in their scheme will determine what they deem to be right before a scheme could qualify for a 50 per cent. grant.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(EXTENSION OF PERIOD FOR SUBMISSION OF SCHEMES UNDER SECTION 1 OF THE PRINCIPAL ACT.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Snadden: I want to ask a question which has been put to me regarding the extension of the period which is laid down in Section 1 of the principal Act. Imagine that a farmer goes into a new farm and submits a scheme under the Hill Farming Act, 1946. That scheme is approved by the Department of Agriculture, but a little later further knowledge of the holding makes it clear that the scheme, which was believed to be comprehensive and adequate at the time, falls short of what is needed. The farmer then produces a further scheme which is supported and approved by the county agricultural executive committee, but it is turned down by the Department of Agriculture because of financial stringency.
In view of the fact that the Bill carries on the old legislation into a new period of five years, can those items which are now completed rank for a grant from the increased money which is to be made available under the Bill? It seems fair that they should, since the county agri-

cultural committee had already given full support in the case I have illustrated. If the Parliamentary Secretary could explain the position of such an applicant, because of the extension into the new period and the fresh money that is made available, I should be grateful.

Mr. T. Fraser: I am asked a very hypothetical question. In point of fact I am not aware that schemes have been turned down up to now because we have outspent the £4 million provided for in the parent Act. Indeed, the total value of the live schemes before Ministers at present quite considerably exceeds the £4 million provided for in the parent Act of 1946.
I should have thought that the executive committees with the Ministers concerned would always be a little reluctant to approve another scheme in respect of one farm or one area, which might include several farms, if that farm or area had already been covered by a scheme which was accepted by the agricultural executive committee and the Minister's own advisers to be sufficiently comprehensive in character, particularly if the Minister is to be selective in his schemes. I think that if he had approved of a scheme covering a number of farms already he would be inclined to spend the additional moneys on new schemes which would come forward later on, but it would be quite wrong for me quite categorically to say that no farmer would ever be able to benefit should he have to come forward a second time.

Mr. Snadden: The example I gave was put to me from the south of Scotland. I have not had time to check it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO IMPROVEMENT GRANTS FOR PROVISION OF CERTAIN CATTLE-GRIDS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Captain Duncan: This Clause deals with the question of provision of cattle-grids by local authorities under the Highways (Provision of Cattle-Grids) Act and the contribution which may be asked from a person. Last week-end I received


information that certain farmers in my constituency had asked for cattle-grids to be provided and the county council have agreed to provide them, provided the owners pay the whole of the cost. I want to make quite certain that if there were an improvement scheme and the farmers put in for half the cost that would be half the total cost and that the word, "contribution" is the right word in this connection.
I do not want to stress the matter, but I would like the Minister to look into the question of whether the owners have to pay the whole cost and that they will be eligible, and not only eligible in the case where the local authority pay half of the cost and the owners the other half.

Mr. McKie: I very much hope the Minister, or the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, will be able to reply to the specific point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan). I hope very much that we shall have a few words explanatory of the Clause and its whole genesis. I am delighted to see it in the Bill because I remember very well the considerable fears expressed, particularly by Scottish hon. Members, when the Highways (Provision of Cattle-Grids) Bill was going through the House, about the embarrassed situation in which people, particularly in Scotland, might feel themselves placed as a result of the passage of that Measure.
As my hon. and gallant Friend has said, this is very good confirmation of the fears expressed at that time. The Clause, of course, does make some provision by way of alleviation for a certain class of people who will be called upon to provide cattle grids, only where an improvement scheme under the Bill has been approved. It will not cover the whole class of persons involved in the cattle grid proposals, but it will provide a certain amount 'of alleviation for people affected by this Bill, and I am delighted that that should be the case. It must be remembered that many people who will be affected by the provisions of the Bill, will not be merely occupiers of their farms or lands, but in many cases they will be owners who are not occupiers. They will be called upon under any improvement scheme, if necessary, to make these improvements. I am glad there is some recognition of that,

although it is eight months since the Highways (Provision of Cattle-Grids) Act was placed upon the Statute Book.
I do not suppose I shall have very much sympathy from the other side of the Committee and I see the right hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Kirkwood) looking at me. He will not sympathise particularly with those persons who, under this Clause, are merely owning the land and not occupying it, or working it. Let me assure him that many persons in Scotland do not approach this subject from quite such a prejudiced angle as he did, and invariably does. As the Under-Secretary knows, the County Councils' Association were very seriously perturbed about this matter at the time of the passing of the Highways (Provision of Cattle-Grids) Act.
Although this Clause gives some alleviation it does not go the whole way. Although he would not be entitled to one-half of the cost of the amount approved by the Minister, the person would be entitled to one-half of the amount payable under the agreement, in other words, only 50 per cent. of what he will be called upon to pay. The Clause should be incorported in the Bill—and I am certain that it will after you have put the Question, Sir Charles—but I hope the Under-Secretary, when he replies to my hon. and gallant Friend, will be so good as to tell us why the Government include the Clause in the Bill and if this is to be taken as a death-bed repentance in regard to the provision of cattle-grids.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(EXTENSION OF PERIODS FOR PAYMENT OF SUBSIDIES IN RESPECT OF HILL SHEEP AND CATTLE.)

Mr. Snadden: I beg to move, in page 5, line 10, at the end, to add:
Provided that in any such hill cattle scheme the qualifying period in the year for which payment is to be made shall be not more than a continuous period of sixteen weeks between the fourteenth day of April and the sixteenth day of November in any year, commencing not later than the fifteenth day of June.
We are trying to provide that the qualifying period in regard to eligible cattle in the hill cattle scheme shall be reduced from the present period of seven months


to a lesser period. I raised the question in a debate on the Department of Agriculture Estimates in the Scottish Grand Committee last July when the Secretary of State indicated that he was sympathetic with the proposal that the qualifying period should be reduced from seven months to five months, or an even shorter period, but that we should see the scheme working a little longer before we made any alteration or came to any fresh conclusion. I suggest to the Government that the time has now come for such an alteration.
6.30 p.m.
I think it no exaggeration to say that no Measure has done more for our hill land or cattle stocks than the hill cattle scheme. We are today seeing its effect not only in the establishment of permanent hill herds but in the increasing number of store, cattle coming forward to our markets, and, what is very important, store cattle of the right type. I do not think one needs to emphasise today that because of our meagre meat ration it should be in the national interest to press on to the maximum extent so as to derive the full effect from this excellent scheme. We need to get the maximum stocks of store cattle produced which our country can possibly supply.
I submit that there are today two factors preventing the full development of the scheme. I have just said that the scheme is the finest step that has yet been taken for the hill farming land of Scotland—and of England and Wales, also. One of those factors is really outside this Bill—the high cost of transport rates for fodder and winter feed. It is the second factor that is preventing the full benefit of the hill cattle scheme in certain areas, especially the far north, with which I wish to deal.
By "far north" I mean far from the point of view of London—Caithness, Sutherland, Ross and Cromarty, Inverness and parts of Moray and Nairn, for example where it is not possible, in the climatic and geographic conditions of those counties, to comply with the seven-month qualifying period. When I look at the scheme I do not find in it anything which lays down a seven-month period. All it says is that the Minister shall have power to bring in schemes in regard to eligible cattle

grazed in accordance with sound farming practice.
The term "sound farming practice" has been interpreted by the Department of Agriculture, no doubt with some reason, to mean that these cattle have to be out for seven months on the hills. I wish to press the point that what happens up in those regions where there is very little shelter, and where the weather is very severe, is that those hill herds go back in condition when September comes. They usually go out to the hills in May, probably a little after the middle of that month. When September comes they suddenly begin to lose condition and that leads to the greatest problem of all in respect of hill cattle. I refer to sterility. The problem of hill cattle is very similar to that of sheep—acclimatisation, the building up, through the survival of the fittest, of hill cattle which can resist high altitudes and severe weather. When sterility occurs because of loss of condition, and the calving dates go all wrong, the farmer becomes discouraged and, in the end, drops out of the scheme.
I suggest that the existing scheme is too rigid, particularly in view of the fact that this week we are to discuss the complex problem of the meat famine here. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that when he talks about the great increase in our cattle population, which I very much welcome and admit, it must be remembered that while we have far more store cattle we have far less beef from them. Our production of store cattle is some 20 per cent. up but the production of beef for the housewife is 15 per cent. less than in 1938. That is the final answer, just as the block test at Smithfield is the final answer to all the breeding in this country.
I wish to press on the Government the necessity of relaxing this scheme in order to secure the maximum amount of store cattle being kept out on the hills by farmers in those parts of the country which from a climatic point of view are very difficult. If the Government were to relax the winter grazing period far more farmers would enter this scheme than is the case today, especially in places like Caithness, Sutherland and some parts of Inverness. T hope the Government will consider this point, because I understand that it has already been pressed upon them by the National Farmers'


Union of Scotland. If the Government agree to change these conditions I am certain that they will remove one of the greatest obstacles today to securing the maximum result from this excellent hill cattle scheme, which, incidentally, was begun by the Coalition Government.

Mr. John MacLeod: I wish, briefly, to voice my support of the Amendment. There is no doubt that the maximum advantage is not being gained, certainly in the mainland of my own constituency and elsewhere in the north of Scotland, because of the seven-month qualifying period. As the hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) pointed out, large areas in the north of Scotland are, for that reason, not being fully utilised. I have just had a letter from the Easter Ross Branch of the National Farmers' Union, which is in my constituency, in which they say:
Great anxiety exists in this area regarding the cattle already cleared and those under threat of dispersal from hill areas on account of the seven-month qualifying condition.
If that is the case, as it must be, it is very serious indeed.
I am fully aware that the Department of Agriculture in Scotland has brought out this regulation, and that, as the hon. Member for West Perth pointed out, this qualifying period is not mentioned in the original Act. I have no doubt also that when the Minister replies he will say that he has consulted the National Farmers' Union, and certainly that the Under-Secretary of State will say that the National Farmers' Union of Scotland have been consulted. I have quoted from a letter from the Easter Ross branch of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, which represents a very wide area indeed.

Mr. T. Fraser: Not as wide an area as the National Farmers' Union represents.

Mr. MacLeod: That is just the point, not as wide an area perhaps as the National Farmers' Union represents, but I say that the Department is not fully taking into account the areas and latitudes where 500 feet represents what would be about 1,000 feet further south, and where animals which remain out after the end of September or the middle of October waste extremely quickly.
A farming friend of mine has written to me as follows:

In many cases, it is more feasible to take the cattle to the feed rather than the feed to the cattle, which latter, in a bad winter, such as 1947, might prove impossible.
Unfortunately, on most of the hill farms in my region, and certainly throughout the Highland area, it is impossible to take the food to the animals because of the high cost of transport and the bad roads and communication, and one must emphasise the wastage, if animals are kept out too long. There is no doubt we are not getting the full co-operation which we could have between the Lowland farmer and the Highland farmer due to that long period during which, under this present regulation, the cow and heifer have to remain out on the hill. I support those who say that if we are to get the maximum amount of advantage from the luxuriant grasses obtainable in the Highlands for the shorter period of about four months this Amendment should be supported.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: I support the Amendment with great pleasure, and I can certainly bear out what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. J. MacLeod) about the effect of altitude on the climate. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that Scotland is to get its share of this scheme, because Scotland can make the greatest increase in home-produced food of any part of the United Kingdom. But it does mean making full use of the 11 million to 12 million acres of undeveloped land which we have. I have seen sheep grazing at an altitude of up to 4,000 ft. in Scotland in the summer. I do not know why the Department selected the period of seven months as the qualifying period. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us. They must know about the rigours of the climate particularly in the central and northern Highlands.
One can be very much deceived by the climate on the west coast where the Gulf Stream runs. We know that on the west coast the grass can grow even as late as February and that it is possible to get grazing quite high up but fairly near the coast. The point we have to remember is that the area with which we are concerned, where we hope to get this great increase, lies between the latitudes of 56 degrees and 59 degrees. In Canada and


Siberia at this latitude it is sub-Arctic. So it is in Scotland when one gets up to 3,000 ft. There is good grazing there in the summer-time, but not in the winter.
If the Amendment is accepted it would lead to a much greater increase in applications. I was concerned when the Parliamentary Secretary said that he was worried about the very much larger selection of farmers who would come within the scope of the Bill and that he was afraid there would be a greater choice to make. But surely that is desirable at this stage; surely this is not the last Bill of its kind which we are to have. The more we hear about this kind of thing the better, and I heartily agree with everything which has been said by my right hon. Friends.

6.45 p.m.

Sir David Robertson: I support the observations of my hon. Friends. This hard and fast rule of seven months applies to Sutherland and Caithness and the other northern counties in the sub-Arctic region referred to a few minutes ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness; and the same applies to Wigtownshire. It cannot be right for both. There is a tremendous variation in the temperatures. I was in my constituency a day or so before the House resumed its sittings after Christmas. The roads were ice-bound. It was practically impossible to travel by road at all; the only means of travel was by train. When I came to London I seemed to be in another world.
I would suggest to the Government that some latitude must be given in this matter. I hope they will accept this Amendment, because I am certain that without it the very object of the Bill will be defeated. Some of the farmers and crofters on low ground adjoining the sea, on the sheltered ground of the South-East and on the West coast adjacent to the Gulf Stream, will be able to keep cattle on the hill for seven months. But is it suggested that farmers and crofters in the districts of Lairg, Rogart, Assynt, Berriedale, Altnabreac and Braemore can keep cattle out for seven months?
I am only ventilating the views of the farmers whom I have the honour to represent, some of them past presidents of the Scottish National Farmers' Union. who came to the House last week and

largely inspired this Clause. They say that the Highlands of Scotland can make the greatest contribution to this problem. I know that the men and women who have to put up with the miserable ration will support these farmers whose views I am expressing today.
There is another point. The whole of Sutherland is sheep sick. The sheep stock is diminishing each year. It got away to a very good start, because before cattle and mankind were cleared away from the glens there were abundant cattle. Now, in this century, certainly since 1900, there has been very little in the way of cattle. The ground is suffering. Grazing capacity is going down. Mr. Ian Campbell, of Balblair, one of the biggest sheep farmers in the Highlands, said that the grazing capacity has gone down by 75 per cent. I cannot say whether that is right or not but it is his, statement, given in writing.
It is of the utmost importance to the country that our mutton and wool production should be maintained; and no one would challenge the fact that if cattle are brought back in numbers—and the Bill is surely designed to do that —the fertility of the grazing will increase greatly.
The Highlands was a great cattle area at one time. Over 150,000 cattle a year, very largely from my own constituency, used to go down on the hoof to Falkirk. It can become a great cattle country again. I have spoken about this every time I have had the opportunity, because I believe it to be in the national interest as well as in the interest of my constituency. This area, representing more than one half of Scotland, could make a massive contribution to our beef production. I do not think there is any area comparable to it and the only regret I have is that the hands of the Minister are tied by this somewhat pitiful sum of £20 million. Hundreds of millions of pounds have gone into the development of the southern areas as well as a tremendous amount of human effort. That kind of effort is required in the far north, and the time has come when it might be brought about.
I welcome the Bill, and hope that the Minister will accept this Amendment, because it is supported by all the practical people who know how long their


beasts should remain on the hill. Is there a better judge than the farmer? Is he likely to bring his cattle in from the hill before the grazing is exhausted? I think the farmer is the best judge, and the farmers in the north were emphatic that this seven-month rule is a hopeless one and that it beats the object of the Bill.

Mr. T. Fraser: I think hon. Members know that we want to complete the Committee stage quite soon, and I do not want to speak unnecessarily on any of the proposed Amendments. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) has just said that this proposal was supported by all practical farmers. I assure him that, to my knowledge, that is not so. He named a farmer who is a constituent of his and an ex-president of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland. I know that it is his view, and that he has argued his contention very forcibly with his fellow farmers; but there are many of them whom he has not convinced of the desirability of this change.
The hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) said that he believed that the National Farmers' Union in Scotland had been pressing for my right hon. Friend to make this change. I assure him that that is not so.

Mr. Snadden: I said that I understood. I have not got the document here, but I think that I have got it in writing somewhere. I understand that the National Farmers' Union have put forward the necessity for a change in the period. They did not name 16 weeks.

Mr. Fraser: But this Amendment does name 16 weeks. The hon. Gentleman proposes to write into the statute the provisions of the hill cattle subsidy scheme which operated from 1943 to 1946.

Captain Duncan: This was not in the scheme.

Mr. Fraser: Yes. It was in the scheme from 1943 to 1946. At that time the primary purpose was to improve grazing. My right hon. Friend and his advisers had full discussion with the National Farmers' Union and the farming interests. It was agreed that the whole purpose of

the scheme should be changed and that a new scheme should be made the purpose of which would be to establish breeding stocks in the hills as a store cattle reservoir for the country. It must be remembered that the whole purpose of the existing scheme is to establish breeding stocks in the hills as a store cattle reservoir.
I know that the gentleman to whom the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland referred is a farmer in a big way in Sutherland. He takes the view that he cannot keep the cattle on the hill for seven months in the year. It is also true that this farmer, and many others in the same county and in Inverness and in Ross-shire, have considerable stretches of low lying ground on which they keep cattle which are not hardy cattle, but which they could easily put on to the hill for four months in the summer and so qualify for subsidy. If we were to revert to the old scheme, and pay subsidies in respect of cattle on the hill for some 16 weeks in the year, we should have to pay a much lower subsidy than the one which is paid just now.
I have not heard it contended that there would be a justification for a £5 subsidy in respect of the heifer or the breeding cow put on to the high ground for 16 weeks in the summer. I do not think anyone would seriously suggest that that is so. But it has been said that it is a fair subsidy to pay for the breeding cow which is on the hill for as great a part of the year as it can reasonably be expected to find feed on the hill. As the scheme is at present, we say that seven months is a reasonable period for which to ask that the farmer should keep his beasts on the hill in certain parts of the country. In other parts of the country he might be expected to keep them for eight, nine or even 10 months of the year. Indeed, in Perthshire—I think the hon. Member for West Perth does it—there are many who keep cattle on the hill the year round. It is he and farmers like him, who keep hardy cattle on the hill all the year round and who produce this hardy breed, who ought to get the benefit of this subsidy scheme. That has certainly been our intention.
It would be a mistake to go back to the 1943–46 scheme by writing this period into the Bill. The hon. Member for West Perth said it was desirable that we have some flexibility. We should not be too


rigid. There is nothing more rigid than this Amendment. It is desirable that the Secretary of State, with his advisers and the farming interests, should be able to consider whether or not the seven-month period is the right one for Caithness and Sutherland, parts of Inverness or Ross-shire, or any other county in Scotland. But we should not disturb the main purpose of the scheme which I need not repeat but which is different from the purpose of the earlier scheme which this Amendment proposes to write into the statute.
There are a fair number of lowland farmers in all parts of Scotland who buy soft-skinned Irish stores. These farmers are not hill farmers at all, but they want to take these less hardy animals away from the low ground in the summer months to enable them to do some haymaking. They want to put them on the hills for 16 weeks in the summer. We think that they ought not to qualify under this scheme. Under the Amendment they would qualify. Manifestly, they would make such a drain on the funds at our disposal that there would not be the same assistance available for those whom we set out to encourage in the first place—the people who will produce these hardy stores from the hillsides of our country by breeding them there and keeping them on the hillsides for as long as possible.
It would be very wrong of us to write this provision into the Clause. I submit that, much as hon. Members and some farmers in different parts of the country might think that the seven-month period is too long a period to ask for cattle to be kept on the hills, it is better that we should be able to consider the representations of the National Farmers' Union and then see whether we should not reduce the period from seven to six, and perhaps even to five months in certain areas. We can do that within the provisions of the existing scheme. It is better to do that than to accept this Amendment.

Mr. Snadden: if the hon. Gentleman had not come out at the end of his speech with a fairly good assurance that this matter is to be reconsidered, I should have been prepared to carry the Amendment to a Division. I cannot accept what I can only call his flimsy arguments. He mentioned the enterprise with which I am connected. It is true that in the wilds of

Perthshire I am connected with an enterprise where we keep the cattle on the hill all the year round. We can only do that. even in central Scotland, by going to the expense of importing considerable quantities of hay and straw which costs many hundreds of pounds to keep the cows "ticking over" for the few months when there is nothing at all to eat on the hill.
Because of that we are in a reasonably favourable position; but that is not so in the far north, where transport rates are terrific. Anyone living in Inverness, Caithness or Ross-shire will appreciate that the whole scheme depends on transport. There the people are not in a position to get fodder at the same prices. I consider that they are in a different position.
7.0 p.m.
As for the money, I am not so sure that it would be a bad thing if we reverted to giving the same sort of grant for almost any cattle on the hills today. We can spend £36 million on groundnuts in Africa, and we are in the middle of a meat famine in this country, and I do not think there would be much money wasted if it would increase the meat ration. I am not at all impressed by the financial argument. It seems to me amazing that we can distribute only a few hundred thousand pounds in this direction, when we are in the middle of a meat famine—

Mr. T. Williams: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by a few hundred thousand pounds? He knows that the Bill provides for the expenditure of £28 million.

Mr. Snadden: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the money provided in the Bill covers great capital expenditure on roads and buildings. I am talking about the cattle scheme itself, which, at the moment, is based on the figure of 100,000 cows.
If the Minister gives us the assurance that he will take this matter back and reconsider the question of the period—and I am not rigid about 16 weeks, which was put into the Amendment to bring it into line with conditions in England; I should say five months of the summer—I think it would be a big step forward. However, for the reasons I have indicated, I will not press the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 7 to 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(AMENDMENT OF S. 10 OF PRINCIPAL ACT.)

In paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section ten of the principal Act for the words from "including" to "a tenant thereof" there shall be substituted the words "but so that such conditions shall not prohibit the occupation of the cottage by the owner thereof, by a tenant thereof, or by any person who is the employee of any such owner or tenant"— [Sir T. Dugdale.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir T. Dugdale: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of this new Clause is to amend the Hill Farming Act, 1946, and restore it to the original form in which it was introduced in this House in that year. The Committee will recollect that, during the Committee stage of the Bill in 1946, the Government introduced an Amendment which prevented an owner from receiving a grant for the improvement of the service cottage included in an improvement scheme. This Amendment was carried and added to the Bill, and it is now our purpose to make it possible for improvements to service cottages to qualify for a grant in any scheme under this Bill.
The Committee will appreciate that there has been much talk about this problem of the service cottage, and I think it is true to say that there has also been a great deal of confused thinking, which has made this problem the centre of keen political controversy, so much so that it is often overlooked that the service cottage is in no way confined to the agricultural industry or those who live on the land. The service cottage is a perfectly ordinary practice in a great many instances of our national life.
Just to give the Committee a few instances of occupiers of service cottages or tied houses, there are, to start with, the Prime Minister, and, following him, there are large numbers of tied houses or service cottages controlled by the Service Departments. Many local authorities are the owners of houses available only to their employees. There are many other examples which I could quote, but

I do not wish to delay the Committee. Perhaps the best of all examples is supplied by what the Minister of Agriculture does in his day-to-day duties when he authorises the building of forestry cottages in order to promote an increased production of woodlands in our country. Naturally, these become tied cottages, and it is quite right that they should.
Finally, on this point, let us take an ordinary, average village in any part of our countryside, and consider how many tied cottages there are and the number of people who live there perfectly happily, without any political differences, until this particular question becomes a point of political controversy. Very often, the local parson lives in a tied house, and the local policeman and the local postman. Then there are the people to whom we are referring today—men engaged in agriculture—and, very often, the school teacher; and all of them go on living in complete harmony and contentment and never worry about this problem at all. I hope, therefore, that we can get away from this violent political point of view when we discuss this problem.
There is no dispute in the Committee about what we want to do under this Bill. It is to improve our cottages in the hill and upland areas. We not only want to improve existing ones, but we also want new ones built. As it exists at present, the law operates harshly on the small owner-occupier, and the Committee should consider that, in many cases, these farmers are not in a financial position to improve their cottages, and are precluded from including them in any improvement scheme, either under this Bill or under the Hill Farming Act as it exists at present.
Following upon this, the workers who live in these service cottages in upland areas are unable to benefit from the improved housing conditions which might have been possible if the service cottage had been included in the terms of this Bill. For all these reasons, we have thought it right to put down this new Clause, and we hope that the Government in their wisdom will accept it.

Mr. T. Williams: I am sure that the hon. Baronet the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) knows exactly what I am going to say before I say it. What I cannot understand is his suggestion that


somebody is stirring up controversy. The hon. Baronet himself is the only one who is stirring up controversy; I am quite happy with the Bill as it is, quite happy with the legislation on the Statute Book. It is the hon. Baronet who, by putting down this new Clause, stirs up unnecessary controversy.
I am sure that he knows, as Deputy Leader of the Opposition, that to accept this new Clause would be quite contrary to Government policy. The principle that houses built or improved with the assistance of public funds should not be occupied as tied houses has been embodied in general housing legislation three or four times since 1946. It is embodied in the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946, and in the Housing Act, 1949, and the Hill Farming Act (England and Wales) Regulations, 1948, made under Section 10 of the Hill Farming Act, also impose a similar condition. Similar regulations also apply to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
It is unreasonable for hon. Gentlemen to suggest that, because a house is let on a tenancy basis, the owner is unable to get possession if he can prove that he requires the house for a person whom he now employs or is likely to employ if he can get possession of the cottage. It is known to every hon. Member that any such farmer or property owner can proceed to a county agricultural executive committee, and, if he can sustain his claim that he needs the house in order properly to cultivate his farm, he obtains a certificate with which he can proceed to court, and if the court in its wisdom feels that the greater hardship would be on the farmer or property owner, as the case may be, then, even without providing alternative accommodation, he can get possession of that cottage.
It has been suggested by those who want to stir up controversy that the fact that such a house is built with a Government 50 per cent. grant is a retarding influence on these improvement schemes in other words, that landowners will not advance an improvement scheme and apply for a Government grant of 50 per cent. unless they can have what is called a "tied" house. That is not true. There are not half a dozen cases in England and Wales where the person concerned has not proceeded with a scheme on the

plea that he cannot have a tied cottage. After all, there is something in the Government's point of view with regard to a tied cottage or a tenancy.
I am not one of those who shout from the house tops about the abolition of this, that or the other; I recognise that on certain remote farms there must be some houses. I would not mind if they were all under tenancy terms if only we could provide the right sort of conditions for the workmen as well as for the employer, instead of the situation which this new Clause would give us where all the power would be in the hands of the employer and none in the hands of the employee. I think it is better that it should be a tenancy. Let the employee pay a reasonable rent and let him feel some sense of self-respect. But if, for one reason or another, he justifiably leaves the employment of a particular employer, then let the machinery which has been provided for the purpose be used while it exists—the certificate procedure and access to the court—since possession can always be obtained, or at least is very frequently obtained, without the provision of alternative accommodation.
Since no less than three or four Acts of Parliament have settled the issue so far as the Government are concerned, I do not think we could contemplate for a moment changing our minds in this small Bill, which, after all, is granting over a period of time some £28 million for certain parts of the farming industry. In all the circumstances, I hope that the hon. Baronet will not feel disposed to keep stirring up this controversy, but will withdraw the new Clause as quickly as possible.

Mr. Vane: I hope that because I want to speak to this proposed new Clause the right hon. Gentleman will not automatically accuse me of stirring up controversy, and I also hope that I shall not speak more heatedly than he has just spoken. But, earlier in the debate, he spoke of the experience he had had of the working of the Hill Farming Act, and said that we should bear that experience in mind. He also said that he is quite happy with the present building and improvement of farm cottages under that Act in the light of the experience gained.
7.15 p.m.
All I can say is that very small things must make him very happy because he wrote to me on 5th December last and told me that only seven houses had been completed in England and seven more in Wales under the Hill Farming Act. That is not the whole of the story, because there are more approved but not started, and Scotland has done better than both England and Wales. The total so far in England and Wales is only 14. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that 10 per cent. of the total estimated cost of all schemes was in respect of new cottages or improvement to farm workers' cottages. When we think that increased production of hill farming or of livestock rearing land depends on cottages, I do not think that is sufficient to make the Minister so happy.

Mr. T. Williams: The hon. Gentleman will not forget what I said earlier on and what I did not want to repeat at this late hour owing to the arrangement we have about the timetable. I said that the whole of the £4 million made available had been taken up. All I can be responsible for is the provision of the money. It is for the promoter of the scheme to decide whether he wants a house or not, so I would ask the hon. Gentleman not to charge either the Minister or the Government with any lack of house building under these improvement schemes.

Mr. Vane: I must repeat that the Minister appears to be perfectly happy that 14 new houses have been completed in England and Wales in the course of four years. I should have thought that on the merits of the case he might be prepared to review it. I was glad that he was perfectly frank about the certificate procedure, because, in fact, the occupier of a house built under the terms and conditions allowed has no security of tenure as, I think, was stated during the Committee stage of the Hill Farming Bill when the Government changed their mind.
Added to that, there is this other point. The large man with more capital can take the risk of building houses, even where he may not be able to obtain possession. But the small man, whose capital resources are very limited, is not in the position today to take such risks, and so, to some extent, the provision which makes the right hon. Gentleman so happy is one law for the richer and another for the poorer. I hope that he will look into the matter again, and will appreciate that it is nothing very revolutionary, that it is exactly the same system as that in his own Department, with not hundreds, but thousands of cottages built under similar conditions to those which he applies here.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 183 Noes, 200.

Division No. 29.]
AYES
[7.20 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Clyde, J. L.
Fraser, Hon. H. C. P. (Stone)


Alport, C. J. M.
Colegate, A.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)


Amery, J. (Preston, N.)
Cooper, A. E. (Ilford, S.)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.


Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Corbett, Lieut. -Col. U. (Ludlow)
Gage, C. H.


Arbuthnot, John
Graddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Cranborne, Viscount
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)


Baldock J. M.
Crouch, R. F.
Gates, Maj. E. E.


Baldwin, A. E.
Crowder, Capt. John F. E (Finchley)
Glyn, Sir R.


Banks, Col. C.
Cuthbert, W. N
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Darling, Sir W. Y. (Edinburgh, S.)
Granville, E. (Eye)


Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston)
Davidson, Viscountess
Gridley, Sir A.


Bennett, R. F. B. (Gosport)
Davies, Nigel (Epping)
Grimond, J.


Bennett, W. G. (Woodside)
de Chair, S.
Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans)


Boles, Lt. -Col D. C. (Wells)
Deedes, W. F.
Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Harris, R. R. (Heston)


Braithwaite, Lt. -Comdr. J. G
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M
Harvey, Air Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Browne, J. N. (Govan)
Drewe, C
Headlam, Lieut. -Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Dugdale, Maj Sir T. (Richmond)
Heald, L. F.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Duncan, Capt J. A L
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W W


Burden, Squadron Leader F. A
Duthie, W. S
Higgs, J. M. C.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Carson, Hon. E.
Elliot, Lieut. -Col. Rt. Hon Walter
Hill, Dr. C. (Luton)


Channon, H.
Fisher, Nigel
Hirst, Geoffrey


Clarke, Col, R. S. (East Grinstead)
Fort, R.
Hollis, M. C.


Clarke, Brig. T. H. (Portsmouth, W.)
Foster, J. G
Hornsby-Smith, Miss F




Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Morris, R. Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. R (N. Fylde)


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Morrison, Maj. J G. (Salisbury)
Stevens, G. P.


Hurd, A. R.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M


Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E
Storey, S.


Hutchison, Lt. -Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Nabarro, G.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S)


Hylton-Foster, H. B.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Johnson, Howard S. (Kemptown)
Nutting, Anthony
Studholme, H. G.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Oakshott, H. D.
Summers, G. S.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Odey, G. W
Sutcliffe, H.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Teeling, William


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Thomas, J, P. L. (Hereford.)


Lindsay, Martin
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Thompson, K. P. (Walton)


Linstead, H. N.
Pickthorn, K.
Thompson, R. H. M. (Croydon W.)


Llewellyn, D.
Pitman, I. J.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Powell, J. Enoch
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Price, H. A (Lewisham, W)
Tilney, John


Low, A. R. W.
Profumo, J. D.
Turton, R. H.


Lucas, Major Sir J. (Portsmouth, S.)
Raikes, H. V.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Rayner, Brigadier R
Vane, W. M. F.


McCallum, Maj. D.
Redmayne, M.
Vosper, D. F.


Macdonald, A. J. F. (Roxburgh)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Wade, D. W.


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Roberts, P. G. (Heeley)
Wakefield, E. B. (Derbyshire, W.)


McKibbin, A.
Robinson, J. Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Rodgers, J. (Sevenoaks)
Ward, Hon. G R. (Worcester)


MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Roper, Sir H.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Ross, Sir R. D (Londonderry)
Webbe, Sir H. (London)


Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Russell, R. S.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Ryder, Capt. R. E D
Wills, G.


Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Scott, Donald
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Smiles, Lt. -Col. Sir W.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Marples, A. E.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wood, Hon. R


Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
York, C.


Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Snadden, W. McN.



Mellor, Sir J.
Spearman, A C. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Moore, Lt. -Col. Sir T.
Spence, H R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Major Conant and




Major Wheatley.




NOES


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Ewart, R.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)


Ayles, W. H.
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Bacon, Miss A
Field, Capt. W. J
Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)


Balfour, A
Finch, H. J
Keenan, W.


Bartley, P
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Kenyon, C.


Benson, G.
Follick, M.
King, H. M.


Beswick, F.
Foot, M. M.
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Blyton, W. R
Forman, J. C.
Lewis, A. W. J. (West Ham, N.)


Boardman, H.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Lindgren, G. S.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M
Freeman, J. (Watford)
Lipton, Lt. -Col. M.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
Logan, D. G.


Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)
Gibson, C. W.
Longden, F. (Small Heath)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Gilzean, A.
MacColl, J. E.


Brown, George (Belper)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
McGhee, H. G.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Rossendale)
McInnes, J.


Burke, W. A.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Grenfell, D. R.
McLeavy, F.


Callaghan, James
Grey, C. F.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Carmichael, James
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Castle, Mrs. B. A
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Champion, A. J.
Gunter, R. J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Chetwynd, G. R
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Mann, Mrs. J.


Clunie, J.
Hale, J. (Rochdale)
Manuel, A. C.


Cocks, F. S.
Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)
Mellish, R. J.


Coldrick, W.
Hamilton, W. W.
Messer, F.


Collick, P.
Hannan, W.
Middleton, Mrs. L


Collindridge, F.
Hardman, D. R.
Mitchison, G. R.


Cooper, J. (Deptford)
Hargreaves, A.
Moeran, E. W.


Cove, W. G.
Harrison, J.
Moody, A. S.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Morgan, Dr. H. B


Crawley, A
Hayman, F. H.
Morley, R.


Cullen, Mrs. A
Herbison, Miss M.
Mort, D. L.


Daines, P.
Hewitson, Capt. M
Moyle, A.


Davies, A Edward (Stoke, N.)
Hobson, C. R.
Mulley, F. W


Davies. Harold (Leek)
Holman, P.
Murray, J. D.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Neal, H.


Deer, G.
Hoy, J.
Oldfield, W. H.


Delargy, H. J
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Oliver, G. H.


Diamond, J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Padley, W. E.


Dodds, N. N
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)


Donnelly, D.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Dye, S.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pannell, T. C


Ede, Rt. Hon J. C.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Pargiter, G. A


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N (Caerphilly)
Jenkins, R. H
Parker, J







Pearson, A.
Snow, J. W.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Peart, T. F
Sorensen, R. W.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Popplewell, E
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir F.
West, D. G.


Porter, G.
Sparks, J. A
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Proctor, W. T
Steele, T.
White, Mrs. E. (E. Flint)


Pryde, D J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E)
White, H. (Derbyshire. N. E.)


Pursey, Commander H
Strachey, Rt. Hon J.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Rankin, J
Stross, Dr. B
Wilkins, W. A.


Reid, W. (Camlachie)
Sylvester, G. 0.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderlard)


Richards, R.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Robens, A.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Thomas, I. R. (Rhondda, W.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Huyton)


Royle, C
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)


Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Thurtle, Ernest
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Shurmer, P. L. E.
Timmons, J.
Yates, V F.


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Silverman, S. S (Nelson)
Usborne, Henry



Simmons, C. J
Vernon, Maj. W. F
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Slater, J.
Viant, S. P.
Mr. Bowden and


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wallace, H W
Mr. Kenneth Robinson.

New Clause.—(MODIFICATION OF RE- QUIREMENT FOR IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES.)

In paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section one of the principal Act for the words "comprehensive enough to provide adequately for," there shall he substituted the words "likely to promote."—[Sir T. Dugdale.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir T. Dugdale: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause deals with the comprehensiveness of schemes put forward under this Bill and under the Hill Farming Act. By and large, I think there have been cases during the past five years where schemes have been turned down because they were not considered comprehensive. Although in recent years, and certainly in recent months, I understand there has been much more flexibility of administration, we feel that words such as are proposed in this Clause would be useful in the actual statute itself, to give statutory guidance to the various committees who have to administer the scheme.
Its purpose is to amend the original Act so that farmers who wish to benefit from the principal Act or from this Bill need not put forward a fully comprehensive scheme, provided that the improvements are likely to increase the productive capacity of the farm for livestock rearing purposes. Further than that, we think, especially at this time when we are spending Government money, it behoves the House to safeguard the interests of the taxpayer to the greatest possible extent. We feel that if we retain the words,
… comprehensive enough to provide adequately for.…
there may be a waste of public money.
The farmer may want a new road which might make the whole difference to the productivity of his farm, yet it may be suggested that, because he only wants a road, his scheme is not "comprehensive" and he may have to provide various things on the holding all good in themselves but not absolutely essential. We hope that the Government can see their way to accept this Clause, or can provide some different form of words between now and the Report stage to show that they accept the necessity of flexibility in approving schemes.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: In a few words, I should like to support this Clause. I have been told that one of the reasons for which schemes have been turned down is because to make them comprehensive it was necessary that they should cover more than one farm and it was not possible for a small farmer always to carry with him neighbouring farmers. Improvements that he personally was quite willing to make on his own farm have been turned down on the ground that his neighbour was not willing to take, or could not find the money for, his share of similar improvements in the farm next door.
If that is the interpretation which is to be put on "comprehensive," it seems to me that we should make a little clearer the purpose which we have in mind so that a clear direction may be given to those who have to administer the Bill. I suggest, therefore, that the words in the new Clause would give sufficient direction to the Administration.
7.30 p.m.
What is the question that has to be answered in each case? I suggest that it


is this: will the suggested improvement increase the amount of livestock bred and maintained on the land, or will it not? If it does, surely that should be sufficient under this Measure, whether or not the scheme is entirely comprehensive. Surely that must be the test. If that test can be met, surely the scheme should qualify for a grant.
Second, it may not be possible, as it very often is not, for a farmer, especially a small farmer, to meet his share of a comprehensive scheme. If a scheme which he puts up will in itself contribute to the increase of stock, then surely he should be allowed to make little improvements as he can and as he can afford to make them, provided it is certain that the improvements will not be lost thereafter. It seems to me that those two points are absolutely vital to the small farmer, and that unless he is able to phase his own programme in accordance with his own pocket I do not think we shall get very far with this Measure.

Mr. Snadden: I, too, wish to add a word in support of this new Clause. I think that a weakness of this type of legislation is its voluntary nature—there is no compulsion about it—and that the landowners with small financial resources are those less likely to take advantage of improvement schemes under the Bill. Yet they are generally the people who generally look after their places fairly well. We do not want to encourage just the big man, with ample funds, to go in for those schemes. We need to encourage the smaller man also, who is hard up, or short of cash.
The comprehensive nature of the schemes granted under the Hill Farming Act tended, in general, to scale off quite a large number of people who felt that they could not face up to even a 50 per cent. demand because of the comprehensive nature of these schemes. I know of some instances where that was the case, and I hope we shall not have anything like that under the Bill.
I recognise that the general intention is to put holdings on an economic self-supporting basis, but I think it would be a great mistake if we placed too much emphasis on the comprehensiveness of these schemes, because by so doing we should deprive farmers and the country of many of the advantages which would otherwise

accrue under this Bill. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us that his administration in this connection will be flexible, and that the smaller man with less financial strength will be able to play a good part and be encouraged to go in for these schemes.

Mr. Grimond: I should like to add a few words on this problem. There is no area in which this Measure might do more good than the Highlands. In the crofting counties and other Highland counties a good deal of land is held in small holdings or small crofts, such as common grazings and scattolds. I believe that under the Hill Farming Act the Department of Agriculture in Scotland took the initiative in encouraging crofters to draw up schemes. I do not think many of those were actually accepted, but I very much hope that that sort of assistance will be given as widely as possible. It is difficult for crofters or smallholders to get together and draw up a sound scheme unless they have assistance in drafting the scheme. That assistance could usefully be given by the Department, as has sometimes happened in the past.
There is a slight danger that when we come to interpret a selective Measure such as this Bill, it may go hard on the smaller man. He may not be able to say that he can make a big return, but if we could have a group of men in a crofting district, or a group of smallholders together tackling the problem of their roads and fencing, and draining and liming their land, I feel that immense wealth could be added to this country.
It is a very serious matter that the population is leaving the land in the Highlands and Islands. We shall never produce the food we require unless we persuade people to return to the land. I know that the Under-Secretary is sympathetic to us in this difficulty, and I hope he will look favourably upon what I understand is the object of the new Clause—to widen slightly the provisions of the Bill and make it possible to encourage groups of people to get together and draw up schemes in their own areas.

Mr. Fort: As the first English Member to discuss this problem after the last three Scottish Members, I should like to point out that we have exactly the same problem of the small man who is held back from entering these schemes because of


their comprehensive nature, certainly in East Lancashire and, I believe, in other parts of England. I know from my own experience of farmers in my own locality who have been prevented from going ahead with schemes under the Hill Farming Act because they have not been able to raise the necessary 50 per cent. required for a full comprehensive scheme, although they would be able to put down the money for a smaller scheme.
I hope that when the Minister replies he will indicate that he recognises that this difficulty is already with us. Certainly, in the poorer farming parts of England, such as East Lancashire, small farmers will be prevented from taking advantage of schemes under the Bill if only full comprehensive schemes can be proceeded with. I hope to hear that we shall have some relaxation on this question of comprehensiveness.

Mr. Turton: I wish to remove a misapprehension from the mind of the Minister about this new Clause. In the Second Reading debate he spoke of this as a good debating point but having no substance in fact. I can assure him that this is a factor which is really hindering development of hill farming throughout England. If the Minister went into any of these small farms in the North Riding of Yorkshire and spoke of a hill farming scheme, the first reaction of the farmer would be, "It will put up my rent. I cannot afford it because the 'war ag.' will order me to have a bathroom in my house, and that will not bring me any more profit." That is the common reaction.
I agree that the Minister has had a certain success with the Hill Farming Act, but if he will look at his own figures he will find that the average scheme is for over £2,000. That is quite all right for the large land-owner, but it shows that the small owner-occupier is not getting the benefit of that Act. Unless this alteration is made he will not get the benefit of this Bill either, and I attach tremendous importance to his inclusion within the scope of the Bill. I believe we could produce a great deal more meat in this country if we encouraged these small owner-occupiers to go ahead and improve their farms. With our present limited capital expenditure I believe it

is far wiser to spend a small amount of money on a great number of farms than to have some big, comprehensive scheme for one or two estates.
The Minister said, earlier today, that he had adopted this line because it was recommended by the De La Warr and Balfour Reports. I have not the Balfour Report in my hand, but I have here the De La Warr Report and I think if the Minister re-reads it he will find that the word "comprehensive" does not occur once. It talks of co-ordinating schemes, but never about comprehensive schemes. I hope the Minister will try to meet what the Report said on this matter, which, I believe, is vital.
It is my view that if we could have expenditure on roads and covered yards in the hill areas of this country we could increase by 20 per cent. the livestock which is being carried—and that is a deliberate under-estimate on my part. I do not think we shall obtain the same increase in livestock through other branches of our expenditure. There are many of these improvements which are affected, and there are other Acts from which farmers can draw benefit—such as drainage and housing improvements. For instance, I should like to see covered yards on these very cold farms on the hills. That is the way in which we shall get the meat we require.
May I draw an analogy with Northern Ireland, where the Government of Northern Ireland have given specific grants of 50 per cent. for roads? When I visited Northern Ireland what impressed me was the way in which the small owner-occupiers had vastly increased their livestock production as a result of the 50 per cent. grant for roads—a grant which we, in this country, have been denied. I am not arguing the wider case from that, but it does show that a limited improvement scheme which satisfies the Minister will mean more livestock produced and will secure for us the meat which this country requires.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Spearman: I hope the Minister will accept this Clause, which will enable him to administer the Bill in a more flexible manner. There are many things on these hill farms which are very desirable in order to improve the social amenities, but


which will not make much difference to the actual food production. On the other hand, there are a few things which are absolutely vital if we are to have maximum food production. I believe it is the inability of the Ministry to distinguish between those two which is causing damage today.
It is, I am afraid, in line with the lowest standards of the Minister's colleagues elsewhere, for I believe there is nothing more disastrous in the economic policy of the Government than their complete inability to measure priorities. It is this inability to put first things first which will cost the country so dear when we come to pay the price. Those of us who think rather better of the Minister of Agriculture than of some of his colleagues are sorry that in this small matter he has not shown a shining example instead of falling to the depths of other Ministries.
A friend of mine, who owns many farms in the North Riding of Yorkshire, was anxious to improve them, and he met three or four Ministry officials to discuss with them improvements which might take place. At that meeting it was made quite clear to him that he would receive a grant only if he did all sorts of things which he had never intended to do. He refused to do them for two reasons—and this is an example of many cases which I could give from the North Riding.
His reasons were, first of all, that the cost of carrying out the requirements of the Ministry would increase the price enormously—and that meant, of course, the price a year ago; prices would be higher today. To pay 5 per cent. on his share of the cost and 2½ per cent. on the total cost, in order to have that reasonable requirement from his tenant in increased rent, he would have to increase the rent of one farm by over 50 per cent. and of another farm by over 60 per cent. and, in the case of a third farm, he would have had to more than double the rent. These farmers are quite prepared to pay a considerably increased rent for projects which will earn money, but they are not prepared to pay a bigger rent for those things which the Minister of Agriculture thinks will be nice for them to have but which they do not think are necessary. They just cannot afford it.
Another reason why this landlord refused to undertake the scheme was this. He has a number of other farms. If he

proceeded to spend £5,000 on nonessentials on certain of his farms all the other tenants would come to him and say, "What do you mean by putting in w.c.s, concrete pathways and things like that, which they do not need, when you do not give us the hay barns and the covered yards we need?"
The Ministry's action in this matter has had the most unhappy effect on food production. This friend of mine wrote to the Minister pointing out these things, and this is the reply he received:
Any scheme approved by the Ministry under Section 1 of the 1946 Act is required to he comprehensive and to provide for the complete rehabilitation of the holding concerned both as regards fixed equipment and also the land. It is unlikely that the Ministry would readily agree to any deletions.
Another constituent applied for a grant to do certain work. He was told that he could receive a grant only if the tubing involved were put in by hand, which would add enormously to the cost, and if there was a concrete and brick building, which he thought unnecessary. He found that the cost of doing those things would mean that his share would be more than the total cost of doing the job in his own way without a grant. In this case he was able to afford it and, therefore, no harm was done; but in other cases the farmer cannot afford it.
I should not like to compare the Minister of Agriculture with the former Minister of Health, because if I did so in a public place I might be involved in a libel action—and I do not know who would be the first to act; but it seems to me that the attitude of the Minister of Agriculture in this matter would be rather like that of the Ministry of Health if they said to a man suffering from appendicitis, "We will get you into a hospital and deal with your appendicitis, but we have got to make a job of it and we will only do it provided we take out your tonsils, which are enlarged, straighten your nose, which has a disagreeable curve, and decrease your weight by 15 lb."—and, no doubt, carry out other physical improvements.
That seems to me to be the attitude of the Ministry in these comprehensive grants, and I do ask the Minister to look at the matter again, and to see if he cannot look at it from a horizontal rather than a vertical angle, with a view to the


tackling of the necessary jobs on each part of a farm one at a time.

Captain Duncan: I regard this matter as of very considerable importance, particularly in the part of Scotland that I come from, because I know it is holding up, in spite of what has been said, the submission of applications for schemes under the Hill Farming Act. I want to stress one point. When that Act was passed there was a certain set of conditions. Now there is a different set of conditions, because the demands for working capital for the farmer are very much heavier today than they were when the Act was passed.
I am not talking about the large farmer at the moment. He can look after himself, more or less. It is the small man with whom I am concerned at the moment, whose working capital has had to be increased in many cases to maintain the profitability of these farms. With the increased costs—abolition of fertiliser subsidies things like that—the increased costs of farming today do mean an increased amount of working capital, and working profitability has to be maintained, and the accretion of capital can only be slow. Therefore, if the small farmer is to put in a scheme, as we all want him to do, he must not be asked to put in a scheme that is too expensive, and if it is too comprehensive it will be too expensive. Therefore, I do regard this as of some great importance in the farming conditions of today.

Mr. G. Brown: There has been a lot of talk about scaring folk off—I think that was the expression used by one hon. Member—by the comprehensive requirement. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) said that it hindered the working of the Hill Farming Act. We have had all sorts of things of that kind said. I must tell hon. Members that all the money allotted under the original Act has been bespoken—the whole of it. We have, in fact, come to an end of our discretionary million, and it means that from between £8,000,000 and £10 million has, in fact, been mortgaged. So it is quite reasonable to assume from our present experience that we shall have little difficulty in using the money provided by the new Bill.
I will deal with the argument about the comprehensive scheme. I want to make it clear that there is no evidence at all to suggest that the comprehensive requirement is holding up schemes because of the capacity of the money we have available. The arguments against it, I think, can very easily be dealt with. First of all, one must remember that we are here using public money to grant aid on a very generous scale for improvements of privately owned, privately farmed, land.
I think it would be held to be quite wrong on both sides of the Committee that public money should be used on this very generous basis unless we were quite sure that the result would be to rehabilitate the land on which the money was being spent. Various little things that want doing, can, after all, be assisted under various other schemes—the marginal production scheme, the lime subsidy, and things of that kind. Here, we are dealing with a different thing. It is intended to rehabilitate land to which the money is applied.
I am rather glad I have the opportunity of catching up the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, who almost caught me on one foot a little earlier in the debate, by pointing out what the Balfour of Burleigh Report states, at the bottom of page 86 and the top of page 87. It is on that excellent Report that the Bill is based. That Report stated:
The State must be prepared to pay a substantial part of the cost, but should make its contribution only in respect of ordered programmes of improvement of a comprehensive character.
A very strict admonition is given not to use money in any other way. It is quite true that in the De La Warr Report the word "comprehensive" is replaced by the word "co-ordinated," but if the hon. Member will read paragraph 49, where it is stated that these schemes should form part of a co-ordinated scheme, I think he will agree that it is not unfair to say that "co-ordinated" there has much the same meaning as "comprehensive" has in the Balfour of Burleigh Report, although the words are not the same. Certainly, the Balfour of Burleigh Report was talking in terms only of comprehensive schemes. But the first justification for using a lot of public money must be that the results will, or are likely to be, beneficial, and so we should use the money really to


promote the sorts of schemes we have; and that to say we should use the money really to promote rehabilitation of land seems to me to make the wording rather more vague, and to take away from the spirit of the intention of the thing.
I have great sympathy with those who say we want this money to go to the small chaps as well as the bigger chaps. Some hon. Members have expressed anxiety about whether the small men will be covered by the new Bill. The small men are covered. Somebody talked about crofters coming in, and a number of schemes. I have said that small men are covered. We can, I hope—and certainly will—provide assistance for those small men technical assistance by way of drawing up schemes which, one recognises, they cannot do themselves.
One hon. Member complained that schemes have rather fallen down because neighbours would not or could not play their parts. That is a difficulty, but, here again, one would want to be sensible about it. One could hardly justify using public money on a scheme which, for its success, depended upon the next door fellow's also coming in. In some circumstances that could lead to a wicked waste of public money. That is obviously a difficulty. However, our experience has shown that there is little difficulty about this, and I think that much of the difficulty may be conjured up in one's imagination, and that one can, in fact, expect much more trouble about getting the comprehensive scheme than we have found, in practice, we do get.
In so far as it is thought that these comprehensive schemes will not benefit a man who has a lot of capital immediately available, let us remember that we pay grant as the work progresses bit by bit, and so, although the total cost of a scheme may look rather frightening, there is no reason why that should hold up the

job. A man does the job in bits, and, naturally, gets the grant in bits, and is covered just as if it were not a comprehensive scheme; and we shall have made a real contribution to the rehabilitation of the land.

The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman) has raised before some details of cases in which he thought we had not been as sensible as we might have been. I am looking into those, and I shall be glad to look into the case he mentioned today, although I may say that my researches do not so far back up any extravagant claims he might make against us.

I hope the Committee will not depart from the scheme as we have outlined it in the Bill. It might not be so valuable were we to depart from this. I can assure the Committee that we shall administer the requirement as reasonably, sensibly, and practically as we can, and that if anyone at any time feels that one of our people administers it in a way that is not sensible we shall be glad to investigate the case. I hope the Committee will not press us to depart from what. I think, is a valuable part of the scheme.

Mr. Grimond: The Minister has shown some sympathy with the difficulties of small farmers and crofters, and has suggested that they may be helped to draw up the schemes. In view of the fact that they have the very greatest difficulty in finding the balance of the money necessary for these schemes, is there any chance of their being able to get assistance by way of loan?

Mr. G. Brown: We cannot provide that in the Bill, but there may well be various other means. I will look into that though.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 166; Noes, 195.

Division No. 30.]
AYES
[8.2 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Bennett, R. F. B. (Gosport)
Channon, H.


Alport, C. J. M.
Bennett, W. G. (Woodside)
Clarke, Col. R. S. (East Grinstead)


Amery, J. (Preston, N.)
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Clarke, Brig. T. H (Portsmouth, W.)


Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bossom, A C
Clyde, J L.


Arbuthnot, John
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G
Colegate, A


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Browne, J. N. (Govan)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Cooper, A. E. (Ilford, S.)


Baldock J. M.
Bullock, Capt. M.
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)


Baldwin, A. E.
Burden, Squadron Leader F. A
Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)


Banks, Col. C.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Cranborne, Viscount


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston)
Carson, Hon. E
Crouch, R. F




Cuthbert, W. N.
Johnson, Howard S. (Kemptown)
Roberts, P. G. (Heeley)


Darling, Sir W. Y. (Edinburgh, S.)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Robinson, J. Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Davidson, Viscountess
Lambert, Hon. G.
Rodgers, J. (Sevenoaks)


Davies, Nigel (Epping)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Roper, Sir H.


de Chair, S.
Lindsay, Martin
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Deedes, W. F
Llewellyn, D.
Russell, R. S.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. O


Dodds-Parker, A. D
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Scott, Donald


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M
Low, A. R. W.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W


Drewe, C
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
McCallum, Maj. D.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Duncan, Caps. J. A. L.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R
Snadden, W. McN.


Duthie, W S
McKibbin, A.
Spearman, A. C. M


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Stanley, Capt. Hon R (N. Fyde)


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt Hon Walter
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Stevens, G. P.


Fisher, Nigel
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Stoddart-Scott, Col M


Fort, R.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Storey, S.


Foster, J. G.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Fraser, Hon. H. C. P. (Stone)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J (Moray)


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Studholme, H. G


Gage, C. H.
Marples, A. E.
Summers, G. S.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Sutcliffe, H.


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Teeling, William


Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Glyn, Sir R.
Morris, R. Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Thompson, K. P. (Walton)


Gridley, Sir A.
Morrison, Maj. J G. (Salisbury)
Thompson, R. H. M. (Croydon, W.)


Grimond, J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Thornton-Kemsley, C N


Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Nabarro, G.
Tilney, John


Harris, R. R. (Heston)
Nugent, G. R. H
Turton, R. H.


Harvey, Air Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Nutting, Anthony
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Oakshott, H. D
Vane, W. M. F.


Heald, L. F.
Odey, G. W.
Wakefield, E. B. (Derbyshire, W.)


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Ward, Hon. G R. (Worcester)


Higgs, J. M. C.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Webbe, Sir H. (London)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Pitman, I. J.
Williams, C (Torquay)


Hollis, M. C.
Powell, J. Enoch
Wills, G.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, A.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Profumo, J. D
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Raikes, H. V.
Wood, Hon. R.


Hurd, A. R.
Rayner, Brigadier R
York, C


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Redmayne, M



Hylton-Foster, H. B.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.




Major Wheatley and Mr Vosper.




NOES


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Deer, G.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Delargy, H. J
Hayman, F. H.


Ayles, W. H.
Diamond, J
Herbison, Miss M.


Bacon, Miss A
Dodds, N. N
Hewitson, Capt. M


Balfour, A.
Donnelly, D
Holman, P.


Bartley, P.
Dye, S.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Benson, G.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C
Hoy, J.


Beswick, F.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)


Blyton, W. R.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Boardman, H.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Ewart, R.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)
Fernyhough, E
Jeger, Dr. S. W (St. Pancras, S.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Field, Capt. W J
Jenkins, R. H


Brown, George (Belper)
Finch, H. J.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Fletcher, E. G M. (Islington, E)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Burke, W. A.
Follick, M.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Foot, M M.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Callaghan, James
Forman, J. C.
Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)


Carmichael, James
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Keenan, W.


Castle, Mrs. B. A
Freeman, J. (Watford)
Kenyon, C.


Champion, A. J
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
King, H. M.


Chetwynd, G R
Gibson, C. W.
Lever, L. M (Ardwick)


Clunie, J.
Gilzean, A
Lewis, A. W. J. (West Ham. N.)


Cocks, F. S
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Lindgren, G. S.


Coldrick, W.
Grey, C. F.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M


Collick, P.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Logan, D. G.


Collindridge, F.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Longden, F. (Small Heath)


Cooper, J. (Deptford)
Gunter, R. J.
MacColl, J. E


Cove, W. G.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
McGhee, H. G.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hale, J. (Rochdale)
McGovern, J.


Crawley, A
Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)
McInnes, J.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hamilton, W. W.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Daines, P.
Hannan, W.
McLeavy, F.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Hardman, D. R
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Davies Harold (Leek)
Hargreaves, A.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Harrison, J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)







Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Pryde, D. J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Mann, Mrs. J.
Pursey, Commander H.
Timmons, J.


Manuel, A. C.
Rankin, J.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Mellish, R. J.
Reid, W. (Camlachie)
Usborne, Henry


Messer, F.
Richards, R.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Middleton, Mrs. L
Robens, A.
Viant, S. P.


Mitchison, G. R.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Wallace, H. W.


Moeran, E. W.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Moody, A. S.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Morgan, Dr. H. B
Royle, C.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Morley, R.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
White, Mrs. E. (E. Flint)


Mort, D. L
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Moyle, A
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Mulley, F. W.
Simmons, C J
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B


Murray, J. D.
Slater, J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Neal, H.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Oldfield, W H
Snow, J. W.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Oliver, G. H
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir F
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Padley, W. E.
Sparks, J. A.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)
Steele, T.
Williams, Rt Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Huyton)


Pannell, T. C.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J
Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)


Pargiter, G. A
Stross, Dr. B.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Parker, J.
Sylvester, G. 0.
Wyatt, W. L.


Pearson, A.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Yates, V. F


Peart, T. F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Popplewell, E
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)



Porter, G.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Proctor, W. T
Thomas, I. R. (Rhondde, W.)
Mr. Bowden and




Mr. Kenneth Robinson.


Question put, and agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

SUPPLY

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1950–51

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Navy Services for the year.

SCHEDULE


—
Sums not exceeding


Supply Grants
Appropriations in Aid



£
£


Vote.




1. Pay, &amp;c., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines
6,650,000
—


2. Victualling and Clothing for the Navy
450,000
*— 100,000


3. Medical Establishments and Services
50,000
—


6. Scientific Services
750,000
—


8. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &amp;c.—




Section I—




Personnel
750,000
—


Section II—




Matériel
3,950,000
300,000


Section III—




Contract Work
350,000
—


9. Naval Armaments
900,000
400,000


10. Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad
Cr. 3,200,000
2,400,000


11. Miscellaneous Effective Services
Cr. 200,000
500,000


12. Admiralty Office
100,000
—


13. Non-effective Services
Cr. 450,000
—


14. Merchant Shipbuilding, &amp;c
Cr. 100,000
—


Total, Navy (Supplementary) 1950–51 £
10,000,000
3,500,000


*Deficit

8.10 p.m.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Callaghan): I understand, Sir Charles, that you move within very narrow limits in the disposal of Supplementary Estimates, and I do not think I shall try my luck against you. All I will say is that I am at the service of the Committee, if there are any questions that I can answer.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: I think that the Parliamentary Secretary has adopted a wise procedure in relying upon his printed explanation, and it is now for us to ask him questions on the Supplementary Estimate and to await his reply at the end.
Vote 1 mentions a sum of £6,650,000, and nearly all of this is the result of increased rates of pay which came into operation on 1st September. I think that hon. Members on all sides of the House approved these increased rates of pay as giving those serving a greater chance to meet the rising cost of living and adding a fillip both to recruitment and re-engagement. There is a further point about the re-engagement of men who have served for 12 years—to complete time for a pension—which has a bearing on the increased sum required for this Vote.
Under Subhead K, a sum of £150,000 is required for payment of bounties. The House will remember that in September a new scheme was introduced under which ratings who were re-engaged between certain dates received a bounty of £100. Presumably, it is under this Subhead that the money will be found for these bounties. We are glad to see that the Government have accepted the suggestion of paying a bounty for re-engagement, which has been made from these benches repeatedly during the last year or so. But does the Parliamentary Secretary think that a sum of £152,000 is going to be enough for this purpose? This matter is the subject of a Motion in my name and that of my hon. Friends on the Order Paper at the moment.
[That this House deplores the fact that the spirit of the scheme under which a bounty of £100 is payable to naval ratings re-engaging to complete time for pension after 1st September, 1950,has been broken, in that men who had no need to re-engage until after that date, but who did so voluntarily before it, have had their claim for bounty disallowed.]
It does not appear that all those who should receive a bounty are going to get it. On Friday, 2nd February, the Parliamentary Secretary, in a written answer to a Question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke), said that there were some 300 ratings who need not have re-engaged until 1st September, but who, out of public spirit, did so earlier. Are we to understand that no bounties are to be paid to these men? If so, we feel that this is a case where very great injustice is being done. We think that the bounty should be paid to all who re-engage, whose period of extended service begins after the commencing date of the scheme. It seems a little short of a scandal if, in order to help the drafting officers at their depots, these men by signing up before 1st September, when under no obligation to do so, are deprived of this bounty of £100. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary may be able to say now or later that this blot has been removed, and that the Government propose to deal with this matter in the spirit as well as in the letter of the scheme.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order. I would like to know how far we can go on this matter. I understand that the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) with others has a Motion on the Order Paper on this particular subject. I take it, therefore, that it is their intention that this matter should be the subject of discussion later. I understand that if the matter is likely to be discussed later, it should not be proceeded with at this point of time. If you rule, Sir Charles, that it is in order to discuss this matter, I am quite ready to do so, but there are rules of procedure which, I take it, we must all observe.

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not know to what the hon. Gentleman is referring, but if any matter is going to come up in a reasonable time it can not be discussed now.

Mr. Callaghan: There is a Motion on today's Order Paper on that point.

Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for not intervening before, because I have just finished all that I had to say on that particular point. I now pass to Vote 6.

The Deputy-Chairman: I have not seen it in today's Order Paper.

Mr. Callaghan: The Motion is in today's Order Paper. The Government on this occasion, if I may say so with respect, seems to be ahead of the Chair. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] There is nothing disorderly about my remark. The Chairman says that he has not seen the Motion, and I am in the fortunate position of having seen it on today's Order Paper.

The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps I might be shown it now.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: In order to help in this discussion may we consider, from the Minister's reply, that he is suggesting that the Government should give time in the near future to discuss this matter?

The Deputy-Chairman: I have not seen the Motion yet. I am waiting for someone to show it to me.

Mr. Thomas: In Vote 6, the increase of £750,000 is all under the Subhead O and covers equipment, materials, and contract research work. How much of this increased estimate is due to the higher prices of materials and contracts, and how much is due to an actual increased amount of research being carried out? It would appear that most of the increase is due to higher prices, since if there were any substantial increase in the amount of research work, there would be, we would have thought, a larger sum under the heading of salaries and wages of those taking part in this extra work.
Vote 8, Section 1, dealing with ship building, requires a further £750,000 for salaries and wages. How much of this increase is due to higher wages and how much to the employment of more men? Section 2—Matériel—requires £3,950,000 more of which £3 million is for stores and equipment presumably to accelerate the dockyard building and refitting programme, and for a measure of stockpiling. How much of this increase is due to stockpiling, to increased prices, and to the operations in Korea respectively? These are the only questions which I have to ask the Parliamentary Secretary on this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I must confess that I have listened to many debates in this House and to many


requests for the granting of public money, but I have never before heard a spokesman of the Government ask for £10 million without explaining in some detail why he wanted it. I certainly think that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty ought to have given us a more elaborate explanation at the beginning, because I think that it would save time in the end.

The Deputy-Chairman: I have had brought to my notice the Motion on the Order Paper. It is an early date Motion, and I consider it very unlikely that it will come on.

Mr. Hughes: That was not my particular point. I think that when dealing with a Supplementary Estimate of £10 million the House is entitled to give the matter serious consideration, and that the Parliamentary Secretary is not entitled to assume that we just nod our heads and give him £10 million without proper explanation. I would point out that some of the greatest controversial struggles in the history of the House and the country have been about the granting of money. King Charles had his head cut off for less than the Parliamentary Secretary is asking us to do today. If we are to have taxation and representation, we are entitled to some explanation as to what these Estimates are all about.
I wish to ask some questions, because I understand that we have to do so in order to elucidate something from the Parliamentary Secretary. Firstly, I wish to ask him whether he was present when the last Budget was presented, because if he had listened to the appeal made in regard to Supplementary Estimates these Estimates might not have been necessary. I remember listening to the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer saying that we must all be agreed that the present danger continues to be one of excess spending. The first question is whether the Parliamentary Secretary heard what he had to say and what influence it has had upon these Estimates. I hope that when Sir Stafford Cripps comes to see the papers he does not read about these Supplementary Estimates, because he will be wondering what is happening under the new arrangement if he does.
Supplementary Estimates deserve just as much consideration as the ordinary Esti-

mates. It is said that great debates are coming on in a week's time on the bigger Estimates; no doubt these are just the cocktails before the stronger drink comes on later. Has it been considered that this money has to be paid for and that the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that the greatest danger to the success of our internal policy has been and still is inflation? Has the Parliamentary Secretary considered that these Supplementary Estimates are likely to lead to inflation, and that therefore we must avoid any development of inflationary tendencies which prevent us from obtaining the importations of raw materials without which our programme of increasing production and full employment will fall in ruins?
Some one has to pay for these Estimates if they are agreed to, and it will be no good any one who supports them complaining later on that a larger burden is being imposed on the British taxpayer. During the debate on the Budget, the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) said that we have the highest taxation burden in the world, and each one of these Supplementary Estimates is a further burden on the camel's back. I have fortified myself with a good many quotations about the danger of inflation, but I shall not give them to the Committee because they came from speeches by Members opposite, like the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), who do not think it is worth attending this Committee. No doubt they will be complaining later on about these Estimates, but today they are missing links.
I wish to ask about some small items contained in these Estimates. I see that there has been an increase in telegrams, telephones and postage. It might be said that we should not worry about the petty cash, but when there is an increase of £230,000 for telegrams, telephones and postage we are surely entitled to have some explanation. What is all this telephoning? Perhaps this is the reason why the Postmaster-General cannot give satisfactory answers to questions about telephones. Surely, when there has been a jump from £321,000 to £550,000 there has been quite a lot of telephoning going on to different parts of the world.
Another question I wish to ask is the expenditure that has been incurred for operations in Far Eastern waters. Can we have an estimate of the naval opera-


tions off the coast of Korea? I have read reports of these operations with great interest, and I should like to know how many navies are engaged on this work. I should like to know whether the ships belonging to the Americans and to this country are the only navies carrying out operations on behalf of the United Nations. Where are all the other navies of the nations that have lined up behind us at U.N.O. and are calling for sanctions? What about South America?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is going beyond the Supplementary Estimates. We can deal only with the increases referred to in the Estimates before us.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I know that, but when this debate comes to be considered by the Parliaments of South America they will not be having supplementary estimates, because we are presumably to do the lions' share and pay the full burden of this expenditure. I believe it to be time that the operations in Korea were stopped.

Mr. Callaghan: I suggest that what the hon. Member is saying is quite out of order. I am never averse to a discussion about policy, but we are in Committee of Supply to discuss these Supplementary Estimates. As I understand it, it is not appropriate on this occasion to discuss the question of whether we ought to be in Korea or anywhere else. I am at the service of Members, but I submit that I can answer only questions of detail concerning individual items that appear in the Estimates. That, I believe, is all I am empowered to do under the Standing Orders of the House.

The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps it would be of assistance to the Committee if I reminded Members what Erskine May has to say in reference to Supplementary Estimates.
If the supplementary estimate is merely to provide additional funds of a relatively moderate amount required in the normal course of working of the services for which the original vote was demanded, only the reasons for the increase can be discussed and not the policy implied in the service which must be taken to have been settled by the original vote;".

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Yes, Sir Charles, I agree entirely with Sir Erskine May on this point. May I point out, however, that what you have read from Erskine

May refers to a relatively modest amount, but £10 million is not. I am sure that if Sir Erskine May had been in this Committee tonight, he would be putting exactly the same point of view as I am.
8.30 p.m.
I will merely point out, Sir Charles, that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty has got into all this trouble and is trying to assist you on Parliamentary procedure because he did not give us a reasonable statement at the beginning. I know quite well that I am not supposed to discuss the policy on Korea. What I am asking about is the cost, and what I was doing before the Parliamentary Secretary proceeded to give you that lecture on procedure was to ask if we are not paying a disproportionate cost of the naval operations in Korea. I was also asking if it is not time that the other 40 nations paid part of this cost for, if that were so, our Supplementary Estimate would not be so big. We are entitled to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty to tell us how much of this Supplementary Estimate has been incurred as a result of Korea. That is an important question, and the very fact that it was asked by the spokesman of the Opposition shows that it is a question to which an answer is required by both sides of the Committee.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: There are two points which I want to raise on this Supplementary Estimate and I appreciate your narrow Ruling, Sir Charles. The first is to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) has said in regard to this increase of £150,000 in Vote 1, K. I am anxious, as he was, that that figure may not be sufficient because, if the Government are considering the question of including within the bounty those who volunteered prior to the date of 1st September, 1950, then it may well be that that figure is not sufficient. So I should like an answer from His Majesty's Government tonight to the question whether they have considered including those people, and if not, whether they will do so and in those circumstances whether that figure should not be increased.
My next and last point arises on Vote 6 or 8 but in either case there is an in-


crease; in Vote 6 of £750,000 for Scientific Services and in Vote 8 of £750,000. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether included in that figure is any research or interchange of knowledge or help which is in being at the moment between the Merchant Navy and the Royal Navy. The hon. Gentleman will understand full well the importance on all questions of our defence that those two Navies should be in contact with each other, gaining information from each other, having trust in each other at all times, so that in the event of war they know what each is likely to do and what they have to do. Therefore, in order to keep within the Estimate, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the two figures which are increased have included the necessary contacts between the Royal Navy and the Merchant Navy. That is all I have to say tonight, Sir Charles, and I think I have kept within Order.

Captain Ryder: I am always a little suspicious when I see a round figure like £10 million and naturally I share certain misgivings of the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I am sorry, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, (Mr. Emrys Hughes). One can well imagine that when the Board of Admiralty are confronted with an increase of expenditure, they do what they can to see how they can offset it. By skilful bookwork here it has been reduced from a higher figure to the round figure of £10 million.
I can well imagine the consternation that must have greeted their Lordships when they found this enormous increase of nearly a quarter of a million pounds for telegrams and telephone calls. They must have heaved a sigh of relief when the Director of Victualling came along and showed a substantial decrease in the expenditure on soap. The inclination of the Navy seems to be to spend more money on telegrams and less on soap, and I doubt whether that is in the interest of the naval Service. I ask the hon. Gentleman to comment on that large increase in telegrams.
May I refer also to Vote 1 (K) which my hon. Friends have mentioned already. I think the Parliamentary Secretary is aware that there are about 300 men who feel aggrieved in respect of this bounty. This arises owing to the fact that certain

men volunteered to re-engage before the date—I think it was 1st September—after which the bounty is payable whereas, had they waited, as they were in a position to do, and had they not answered the appeals made for men to re-engage, they would be entitled to the bounty of £100.
One can well imagine the meeting of two men with the same seniority, one of whom in a moment of patriotism came forward and volunteered in answer to the appeals put on the ship's company notice board, and whose friend who had waited in an uncertain frame of mind until this monetary reward was offered. The man who volunteered earlier finds that he is £100 worse off. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will investigate this matter and will say something about it when he replies.

Squadron Leader Burden: Under Vote 8 (Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c.) there is an increase of £750,000, including an increase under sub-head B for the wages of artificers. I should like to know if any amount is included here for increasing the very low pay of skilled labourers in the dockyards. Their basic pay is very low, and I understand that there is a shortage of these skilled labourers because their standard of living is extremely low. Has this been taken into consideration, and is it intended to increase the wages of these workers?
My second point concerns Vote 1 (K). We are quite right in pressing, through my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Captain Ryder), the concern of this side of the Committee in the penalising of men who have considered it their duty to sign on for a longer period at the earliest possible date. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will see the force of this argument and will ensure that these men, who carry out their duty in a patriotic way, do not suffer loss for that patriotism.

Brigadier Clarke (Portsmouth, West): I reiterate what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Captain Ryder) said about Vote 1 (K). The Parliamentary Secretary and I have been in correspondence about this since early in September. The men concerned were invited in their patriotism to re-engage to complete 22


years. They could well have held their hands and not re-engaged until after 1st September. They were literally incited—they were asked through patriotic channels—to re-engage. They did so, and by so doing have been robbed of £100. It is not as if this had happened to thousands of men. Judging by the written answers I have had from the Parliamentary Secretary, the number concerned is about 300. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider this and give these men their just due. They could easily have engaged after 1st September, but their patriotism made them do so earlier, and they should not be penalised for their patriotism.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. James Callaghan): The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) raised a number of points, including the additional cost of research. He asked how much of the extra cost is due to higher prices and wages, and how much can be attributed to additional research work. I can only give an order of magnitude, and I should not care to be committed to figures. Taking as broad a view as I can, I should say that half of this figure is probably due to additional increased research, and the other half to higher costs and prices.
The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) raised a point in this respect concerning the Merchant Navy. Certainly, experiment is taking place, and operational, as well as intrinsic, research is going on into the provision of additional safety measures for the Merchant Navy. This is regarded by the Royal Navy as of the highest importance.

Mr. D. Marshall: I thank the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Callaghan: The Royal Navy's job is to get the merchant ships through; that is what the Navy is for. Therefore, it is important that our customers should have the best possible means of protection that can be provided. I can assure the hon. Member that a considerable amount of work is being done on that in one way or another.
The hon. Member for Hereford then referred to Vote 8 (1), and asked whether the additional amounts on salaries and wages shown here represent higher wages

or whether they represent additions to the number of staff. Practically all the amount is for higher wages and salaries and not for additions to staff. One reason is that the dockyards—the Civil Lord has this constantly in mind—are unable to recruit all the men they would like. As my hon. Friend says, that is because of full employment generally. Therefore, there is much greater competition to the dockyards today for labour than there was some years ago, so the answer is that practically all of this amount represents additions to the wages of existing men serving in the dockyards.

Brigadier Clarke: Does the hon. Member appreciate that there is still unemployment in Portsmouth? I have the names of many men who would like employment there, but have not been accepted.

Mr. Callaghan: I question that; I have a longer connection with Portsmouth than has the hon. and gallant Member.

Brigadier Clarke: That I doubt, as I was born there and have been there for many years.

Mr. Callaghan: In that case, it is a draw because I was born there also—

Brigadier Clarke: I was there first.

Mr. Callaghan: —and I remember reading the figures of unemployment before the war, as I expect the hon. and gallant Member also remembers. This is the case; it is no use burking the issue. In the days when I was at the Portsmouth Secondary School the height of one's ambition was to go into Portsmouth Dockyard because there was nowhere else to go, except into the Civil Service, as I did.

Mrs. Middleton: What proportion of the increase mentioned by my hon. Friend goes in wages and what part in salaries?

Mr. Callaghan: I could not give that offhand, but I can assure my hon. Friend that by far the greater proportion of it is in respect of wages. If my hon. Friend will look at Subhead B she will see that of the increase of £750,000, the sum of £600,000 is in respect of wages of artificers.
Then the hon. Member for Hereford asked about "matériel," as they still call it in the Admiralty. He asked the same question: What proportion of the extra cost is due to increased wages and what proportion is due to the provision of additional stores? In the case of stores and equipment, under Subhead A only a tiny proportion is due to increased prices. The overwhelming proportion is in respect of the additional stores and equipment that is being produced. In the case of the other substantial item, Subhead K, fuel and lubricants, a fair proportion is in respect of increased prices, but the majority is in respect of additional stocks.
There is also an item in respect of expenditure on fuel for the Far Eastern Fleet engaged in operations in Korea and that does not represent any increase in stocks. There are, in fact, three components in Subhead K, one, increased prices which is a fairly substantial proportion, another increased cost of the Far Eastern Fleet, which is steaming a great many thousands of miles at present, and the other the cost of fuel. The third is far bigger than the first and second.
I was asked and, in fact, twitted about the cost, in Vote 11, of "Telegrams, telephones and postage." Members have had a lot of fun in asking what the Admiralty is doing writing so many letters and sending so many telegrams as to increase the Vote from £321,000 to £551,000. If they had looked at the original Vote before making those humorous speeches they would have seen that this subhead does not relate only to the Admiralty's letters and telegrams but also to postal concessions to officers and men. The greater part of the increase in this Subhead is the result of the special postal concessions that have been made during the last few months, and have nothing to do with Admiralty letters and telegrams. This is additional expenditure in the year ending 31st March next—

Captain Ryder: It comes under Vote 11, which is headed "Miscellaneous Effective Services." Is that a true description?

Mr. Callaghan: I must remind the hon. and gallant Member again that these Supplementary Estimates derive from the original Navy Estimates, which show quite clearly what is the composition of this Vote. I ask the hon. and gallant

Member to accept from me that what I say is the case, that this item includes the Forces postal concessions and also to the special Christmas concession, which, he will remember, was made in order to get parcels to Korea.

8.45 p.m.

Air Commodore Harvey: The hon. Gentleman has explained the various postal concessions quite clearly, but why does this cost appear on the Admiralty Vote? Why does it not come out of the vast profits made by the Post Office?

Mr. Callaghan: That, I think, has nothing to do with the case.
I pass from that to the question of the bounty. The hon. Member for Hereford, the hon. and gallant Member for Merton and Morden (Captain Ryder), the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall), the hon. and gallant Member for Gillingham (Squadron Leader Burden) and the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke), all put the case of certain men who re-engaged before 1st September, 1950. We can all understand the feelings of those men; I can certainly put myself in their position and visualise what I would feel about the matter. But it always happens that as soon as an increase is given and a line is drawn, the fellows who come just before the point where the line is drawn, wherever that may be, feel that they have been very hardly done by.
This is not so easy a matter as it looks. This special bounty was given as an inducement to men to re-engage. It was designed for that purpose and, therefore, the view was taken very strongly that those who had re-engaged should not qualify for a bounty designed for those who had not re-engaged. The date of 1st September was chosen. This is of course an inter-Service matter, and different rules for re-engagement apply in the various Services. In my own Service men are permitted to re-engage in their tenth, eleventh and twelfth years. In the R.A.F. they are permitted to re-engage at any time after the end of their fourth year. This might mean that if the concession which has been asked for was given men who re-engaged as long ago as the middle of the war—1942 or 1943—would, in the case of the R.A.F., be able to claim the bounty.
This is not, I repeat, an easy matter. I have heard with great sympathy what has been said. I cannot guarantee for a moment that anything will be done, but I will convey to the First Lord what has been said about the matter. It is always the case that when a line of this sort is drawn in a matter which affects all three Services it is not an easy job to separate those who ought to qualify from those who ought not to do so. I suppose it is also the case, although this will not help any one who signed on before 1st September, that those who now sign on before completing their 12 years will benefit at once. Another lot of men are concerned, but the same point is involved. We get into difficulties wherever we draw a line in these matters.
I was asked about the cost of Korea by the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I am sorry, but I must stand by what the Minister of Defence said recently on a similar subject in connection with the cost of the fighting in Malaya. He was asked by the hon. Gentleman, who has a very natural and proper curiosity about these matters, if he would give the cost of the military operations against the bandits in Malaya. My right hon. Friend said it would not be in the public interest to publish this information. I cannot go further tonight than he went.
I was asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Gillingham about the wages in the dockyards. These sums all represent additional costs that will be incurred up to the end of 31st March, next. Increases in pay which have been given are accounted for in this Supplementary Estimate. Increases of pay which have yet to be given will be accounted for in the Estimates for next year.

Commander Galbraith: I am sure that the whole Committee appreciates the manner in which the Parliamentary Secretary has replied to the various questions put to him. As the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes), knows well, it is the concern of the Opposition to watch over any increase in the Estimates; and it is right that on this occasion we should inquire fully into these matters and be satisfied as to the explanation given.
I was not either satisfied or convinced by the explanations which the hon.

Gentleman gave about the bounty which comes up under Vote 1, Subhead K. When any question of this nature arises it is fashionable for Service Ministers immediately to plead that it is an inter-Service matter, that the Services must walk together and keep in step all the time. If I followed the hon. Gentleman's argument it seems to me that there was no reason for the Navy to follow on this occasion at least, because the hon. Gentleman went on to say that conditions differ between the different Services. Therefore, it appeared to me that the Navy might have been treated properly in this matter.

Mr. Wyatt: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. and gallant Member to advocate that a Supplementary Estimate should be higher than that presented to Parliament?

The Deputy-Chairman: We certainly cannot increase it.

Commander Galbraith: I am merely alluding to a matter which has been the subject of discussion throughout this debate, and to which a very courteous reply was given by the Parliamentary Secretary. I cannot see the difficulty. The hon. Gentleman talks about drawing a line and says that difficulties must always arise whenever a line is drawn. Surely the difficulty here is not as great as all that. Did not the Admiralty announce that a bounty would be paid to men who re-engaged after 1st September, 1950?

Mr. Callaghan: What happened was that the Government announced that a bounty would be paid to men of the three Services who re-engaged after 1st September, 1950.

Commander Galbraith: It would seem, then, perfectly clear that the date of this announcement was the datum line, and that men who did not have to re-engage until after 1st September, but who did actually re-engage, in response to the announcement made in the House, before 1st September, are entitled to be included in the bounty. I cannot see any way in which the Admiralty can dodge-that issue. It seems to me entirely wrong and highly immoral to do so.
There is one other matter on which I was not completely satisfied by the hon. Gentleman. Speaking on Vote 6, he said,


that additional safety measures were being provided under that Vote for the Merchant Navy. I am quite certain that every one of us was extremely glad to hear that precautions of that nature were being taken. But, of course, this Vote alludes entirely to scientific services and research. What I would like to know—it may be that the hon. Gentleman did tell us in his reply, but what I want to be certain about—is whether measures are in hand to put into operation the results of the research which has been undertaken under this head; and, in particular, whether measures for the defensive arming of our merchant ships are included in Votes 8 and 9. That is a matter which is causing considerable concern and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to say that moneys are included in Votes 8 and 9 for the specific purpose of the defensive arming of merchant ships.

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Navy Services for the year.

ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1950–51

VOTE A. ADDITIONAL NUMBER OF LAND FORCES

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an additional number of Land Forces, not exceeding 55,000, all ranks, be maintained for the safety of the United Kingdom and the defence of the possessions of His Majesty's Crown, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart): It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I explain how this figure of 55,000 arises. The original estimate was for 467,000 which covered the number in the Army in April, 1950. In fact, the number by next April would have been, but for certain measures with which the House is familiar, 449,000—that is to say, 18,000 within the original estimate.
The Committee will remember the statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 12th September last

which referred to the extension of National Service, to the recall of a certain number of Reservists and to the retention with the Forces of Regular soldiers. The increase of National Service has had the effect of increasing the number of National Service men in the Army during the latter part of this financial year by 55,300. The recall of reservists has added another 5,000, and the retention with the Colours of Regular soldiers whose service would otherwise have come to an end has added 12,700.
That gives us, from these three sources, a total of 73,000 more men in the Army. As I have already explained, we should, apart from these measures, have been 18,000 within the original estimate. We are, therefore, now going to be 55,000 above it. That is why the Committee is now asked to sanction this increase of 55,000 on Vote A. The Committee will appreciate that the reasons of policy which have lead to this increase have already been before the House where they were fully discussed and approved.

Brigadier Head: I am not clear. Is it intended to take the Votes one by one?

Mr. Stewart: I assumed that we were taking Vote A now and that the money Votes would be taken together later.

The Deputy-Chairman: Yes.

Brigadier Head: As far as Vote A is concerned, I think I can speak for all hon. Members on this side of the Committee when I say that we have no other feeling than one of welcome for this increased number in the Forces. This is the one thing we have been urging on the Government for the last four years. Now that we have an increase I do not think any hon. Member on this side of the Committee would either grudge the expenditure or do anything but welcome these large amounts.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am obliged to the Minister for being more communicative than the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. Some of the figures he gave make me wonder. When we voted for increasing the pay of the Army we understood that there would be a great influx of recruits as a result. I should like to ask if the total figure of recruits up to now is 55,300. Is that all?

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Stewart: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has fully understood what I said. The figure of 55,300 is the increased number of National Service men as the result of extending the period of service from 18 months to two years. I cannot quote figures showing the extent to which recruiting has increased since the increased pay was announced, but, after that, the rate of recruitment rose very rapidly indeed. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the size of the Army at any one time is affected by the rate at which the men's contracts of service expire.
The total figure of men in the Army is like the height of water in a bath. The rate of recruiting is the rate at which the tap allows the water to flow in. A substantial increase in that inflow followed the announcement of the increases in pay, but it cannot, in this comparatively short period, show anything like a great increase in the total number of men in the Army. Consequently, that is not really under discussion on this Vote at all.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: All I want to know is this. Cannot we get some definite information as to how many recruits have been obtained as a result of giving increases in pay. To tell me about the water in the bath does not give me any information at all. What I should like to know is whether the War Office has any idea at all how many recruits were obtained as the result of the increases in pay.

Mr. Stewart: I am not quite sure that that is really relevant to the Vote, but, if the hon. Gentleman is anxious, I can tell him these monthly averages for Regular recruiting. For the months from January to August last, the average monthly figure was 1,619, and, for the months from September to December, the average figure was 3,085.

Resolved:
That an additional number of Land Forces, not exceeding 55,000, all ranks, be maintained for the safety of the United Kingdom and the defence of the possessions of His Majesty's Crown, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951.

ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1950–51

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £20,000,000, he granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Army Services for the year.

SCHEDULE


—
Sums not exceeding


Supply Grants
Appropriations in Aid


Vote.
£
£


1. Pay, &amp;c, of the Army
10,915,000
675,000


2. Reserve Forces, Territorial Army and Cadet Forces
Cr. 950,000
—


4. Civilians
Cr.3,005,000
—


5. Movements
2,305,000
100,000


7. Stores
12,177,000
3,600,000


8. Works, Buildings and Lands
Cr. 1,167,000
250,000


9. Miscellaneous Effective Services
Cr. 275,000
275,000


Total, Army (Supplementary) 1950–51 £
20,000,000
4,900,000

Mr. M. Stewart: The Committee will see on page 6 of the Supplementary Estimate the reckoning, as far as it can be made, of the amounts of this Supplementary Estimate which can be ascribed to particular causes, and it will be apparent that, in round figures, the position is as follows. There is an increased expenditure of about £27 million which can be explained as in part due to the increased numbers in the Army, in part to the increased rates of pay, in part to increased production and in part to the despatch of troops to Korea. Then, there are certain savings totalling £7 million.
To elaborate that a little further, with regard to the four main causes of increases in expenditure, the first is that of numbers, to which I was referring when we were discussing Vote A, and these amount, as is shown in the first item in the table on page 6, in round figures to £3 million. That is the amount by which the Army Estimate is greater because there are more men in the Army. Next, increased rates of pay give us an addition of £8½


million. Increased expenditure on production gives a gross figure of about £16 million, although the net figure is £12½ million.
Let us take the gross figure of £16 million on production, which can be broken up in two ways. In the first place, as to the time at which the expenditure was caused, of that £16 million, £8 million is in respect of increased deliveries of stores ordered in the current financial year. The rate of delivery has been speeded up and we have to pay for them earlier than otherwise would have been the case, and that accounts for £8 million out of the £16 million. Additional production following from the programme announced in July and September last accounts for £5 million out of £16 million, and £1½ million is due to final payment arrangements in respect of stores delivered in 1949–50. The remaining £1½ million is due to increases of prices.
The Committee will note, I think with some gratification, that a substantial part of the sum represents increased stores of various types actually in our possession. Secondly, the figure of £16 million can be broken up according to the type of stores as follows: about £3 million on clothing, about £2 million on general stores, and practically the whole of the remainder on warlike stores.
The fourth reason for increased expenditure was the dispatch of troops to Korea. My hon. Friend who has displayed so much interest in this matter will realise that this is not the time, for the reasons explained by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, to give an estimate of the total cost of the Korean operations. To give an estimate of the whole cost of a particular operation is a thing that is not done. This is simply the cost of despatching the troops to Korea and can be set opposite the figures in Vote 5 on page 4 of the Supplementary Estimates, the conveyance of troops and stores by sea and air instead of by sea.
In that way, the total of £27 million of increased expenditure is made up. Against that, we have to set various items in which our expenditure was less than estimated, of which the largest arises from Vote 4 with regard to civilians. The Committee will see that that decrease is of the order of £3 million, and, in view

of the point raised in the earlier debate on the Naval Estimates, I might perhaps mention that all of that, and, indeed, more than all, is due to our employing fewer civilians than we had hoped and intended to employ. The reason for this is due partly to the full employment instanced earlier, and partly to the fact that some of the places where we employ civilians are remote and thinly populated, and therefore it is difficult to get the numbers we want.
There was, in fact, an item of about £700,000 due to increased rates of pay to civilians so that the diminution in numbers accounts for really £3 million on its own account and offsets that £700,000 for increased pay. The other items in which our expenditure is less than estimated are numerous, and no one of them accounts for any large sum. Therefore, we are left at the end of the account with a figure of £20 million by which our expenditure is likely to exceed the original Estimate, and it is that figure for which I ask the approval of the Committee.

Brigadier Head: I do not think that we on this side of the Committee shall have a lot to say on the Supplementary Estimates, although the fact that we shall not deal with them in great detail is not due to any lack of interest in them, but because there are few items with which we can quarrel very strongly. Nor is it due to the fact that we have not a great deal to say about the condition of the Army and of the Services generally at the present time. We think that is better retained for the forthcoming Defence debate.
Nevertheless, I would make a few very brief remarks on the Supplementary Estimates, and the first thing I would like to say, which the Under-Secretary of State did not mention, is that it is rather sad to see that very small economy of about £1 million in Vote 2, which is concerned largely with the Cadet Forces Supplementary Reserves and Territorial Army works and buildings. I am sure that the Under-Secretary would agree that the health of those particular institutions has a very large influence on the future health of the Army as a whole, and that it is not an encouraging sign to see that the funds originally voted for that purpose have not been completely spent owing, I presume, to unsatisfactory recruitment


and not sufficient recruits and units being available to take up those funds.
I would also like to comment, very briefly, on the question of the employment of civilians. We have in the Army, particularly, a very serious shortage of trained manpower, notably among the Regular element. At the same time, we have an immense number of men doing clerical duties in such places as pay offices and other base depots. Furthermore, there are many soldiers doing jobs in barracks which might well be done by civilians. The tragedy is, as the Under-Secretary of State has stated, that the Government are unable to recruit sufficient civilians to meet the demand.
I hope I am not going out of order, but I would like to give the Under-Secretary a gratuitous piece of advice. It is that I believe the War Office still maintains an unnecessarily stubborn view towards ex-soldiers who, after 21 years' service, still like the sound of the bugle and would like to take jobs as civilians but are not taken on because they are considered to be too old. I should like to see ex-soldiers from the Quartermaster's stores and many similar ex-soldiers given these jobs. I have many letters from men who would like to be in the Army, who like the sound of the bugle and who would like to fill these jobs. Old soldiers, I agree, sometimes die, but old soldiers would be useful for this purpose. Much use could be made of them and it would be a great asset to the men themselves.
I should also like to comment shortly on another increase—that on movements. This increase is largely due to moving troops to Korea, but it is a substantial increase of over £2 million. and I would point out that the Movements Vote, which amounts to something over £24 million, is the penalty of having a short-service Army with commitments overseas to which short-service men have to be sent. It is an astonishingly expensive thing not only in money but in manpower. If the Under-Secretary would like to volunteer the information we would like to hear what is the number of men in the Army in the pipe-line, going from A to B at any one moment. I have an idea that the figure would make hon. Members' hair stand on end when they realised the expenditure in manpower.
An increase of £1½ million on production was due to increases in prices. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary can be a little more specific and say over what particular stores and quantity of expenditure that £1½ million lay. It would be of considerable interest to know whether the £1½ million lies over the whole expenditure, or the proportion over which it lies, because it would be some indication of the problem that will confront us in the future. It would give an indication of the point beyond which a rise in prices is going to off-set the money now required for production. That would be of interest to many hon. Members in considering the wider aspect.
As I said at the start, I think most of us on this side of the Committee will welcome the reason for this added expenditure because it is a sign we are getting more men in the Army. It is dreadful that not more of them are volunteers and that large numbers are Regulars who have been forced to remain in the Army, or are National Service men whose term of service has been extended by six months. Nevertheless, it is a sign of increasing strength and, on the whole, I do not think the Government will find any strong opposition to the Supplementary Estimate on this side of the Committee.

9.15 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke: I should like to congratulate the Under-Secretary on his very clear explanation of these Supplementary Estimates, which I hope will be borne in mind by the Admiralty next time the Navy Estimates come up for discussion. I should also like to endorse what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) said with regard to the employment of ex-Service men in certain jobs. We are all, no doubt, moved by the tragic letters we receive from former officers and men who have served in the Armed Forces and who are prepared to continue doing something useful in the Army.
May I raise two small points? First, I hope that the reduction in the lodging allowance and London allowance does not mean that there has been a reduction in the rate but merely that there is a reduction in the number of men involved, because certainly the London expenses have always been higher than anywhere


else in the country and overseas. I hope we shall have an assurance on that matter. I notice in Vote 1, J that local overseas allowances have increased considerably. Could the Under-Secretary say whether that is a result of an improvement in the arrangements made for such areas as Hong Kong and North Africa? There have been troubles in both those places; they have been brought to the attention of the House from time to time, and I hope now that every one is satisfied in both those theatres as in others.
I wish to turn to Vote 7, C—medical stores. I see that there is an increase of £133,000. We have been made aware since the Korean campaign began that there has been a severe shortage of medical stores. I should like to know whether this increase of £133,000 is entirely in order to meet that shortage, whether that shortage has now been adequately met and there is likely to be no continuing shortage in future.
In conclusion, I wish to make reference to Vote 8 relating to construction and maintenance services on which there is an increase of £873,000. Could the Under-Secretary tell us whether that represents an increase of married quarters? I hope the programme has been met. I do not think hon. Members would begrudge voting an extra amount if it means that the married quarters for the Forces are getting more in tune with the needs.

Mr. Wyatt: I should like to defend the increase in Vote 5 relating to movements, which was attacked by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head). The increase is about £2 million and, as I understand, this is entirely due to the Korean campaign which necessitated the unexpectedly large movement of troops to that area. The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton seemed to imply that had some other policy been adopted this increase in Vote 5 would not have been necessary. What is the other policy that he wants to adopt? The Committee should be clear on this point, because the hon. and gallant Member should not be allowed to get away with it.
What he is saying, in effect, is that the present conscription policy is not satisfactory, and that to avoid so much move-

ment of men we should have a selective service for a longer period. What he is advocating is a ballot system of conscription so that there would be fewer men serving for a longer time, there would not be so much movement, and the item in Vote 5 would be reduced. That is what he is in effect saying, and it should be put on record that that is what the Conservative Party want to do.

Brigadier Head: The hon. Gentleman is putting words into my mouth in a manner which is strongly typical of himself and the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), and with which I am becoming well accustomed. If the hon. Gentleman had attended and or listened to the previous defence debate, he would know that we have always recommended the same things. That is, that if at an earlier period the pay for the voluntary elements in the Army had been increased, the wastage would have been far less, we should now have had an Army prepared to fight, and we should not have had to send 18 months' National Service men to the Middle East, which does not make sense.

Mr. Wyatt: Is it a fact that the hon. and gallant Member feels that now pay has been increased it will be possible to reduce National Service from two years to 18 months again?

Brigadier Head: Indeed, the whole point of increasing National Service was, as has been stated by the Minister of Defence and the Secretary of State for War, that as voluntary recruiting increases and the Regular element increases, so we can gradually turn off the tap of National Service—and that is Government policy, I would point out.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The Under-Secretary of State said that I have taken an interest in Korea, as if it were not the duty of hon. Members to take an interest in Korea. I come from a part of the world where they are vitally interested in the soldiers despatched to Korea; the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders were sent there.
In this Vote there is a sum of £3,051,000 for the despatch of troops to Korea, and I think that is a large item. If it were £3,051,000 for bringing them back from Korea I would support it with great enthusiasm, and so, I believe, would 90 per cent. of the people of this country.

Brigadier Clarke: Is the hon. Member suggesting that we should bring them back from Korea now?

Mr. Hughes: Certainly. The hon. and gallant Gentleman should not become alarmed at these revolutionary expressions. They will be in Portsmouth very shortly. If the hon. and gallant Member gave them the opportunity of saying whether they should stay in Korea or should come home he would find that 90 per cent. of the officers and men would come home.

Brigadier Clarke: That is not true.

Mr. Hughes: But this is only the cost of despatching troops. It is not the cost of maintaining them. I should like to know when we are to have some idea of the cost which must be borne by the people of this country as a result of the present military operations in Korea. Is the cost included in this extra Supplementary Estimate of £20 million? It is certainly not included in the rearmament programme. The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) talked about hon. Members' hair standing on end over some technical question—

Brigadier Clarke: On a point of order. Is it in order to debate the Korean operations at this moment?

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the hon. Member is in order on this Service Estimate.

Mr. Hughes: I do not see why we should not talk about Korea. If we are spending money under the Estimate which includes the sending of men to Korea I do not see why we should not talk about it. I think we should have further information about Korea. As I was saying, before I was interrupted, the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton spoke of hon. Members' hair standing on end about the technical question of the movement of troops—

Brigadier Head: The hon. Member apparently regards as completely a technical question what I said about £24 million being expended on movement. It is a very considerable expenditure which, I thought, could largely be reduced—and I assume the hon. Member is in favour of a reduction in the expen-

diture on defence—were it not an absolute necessity to send short service men to the Middle East and even the Far East.

Mr. Hughes: I quite agree with any proposal to reduce the Estimate, even by £24 million, but I suggest that if we are to be horrified by that expenditure then the Committee and the people of the country will be horrified when the total bill for Korea is disclosed. The cost of the total operations will amount to a gigantic sum.
I remember opposing the decision to go into Korea when I spoke in the House at the time, but we were told then that it would not be a war at all but would be a police operation. Now we find that merely the despatch of the men to Korea has cost £3,051,000. I want to emphasise what was said by one of our leading military experts in an article written in the "Daily Herald." It was written by Liddell Hart, who said that it was too late to retrieve our blunders in the Far East and wiser to cut our losses there. I am sure the majority of our people want to see us cut our losses in Korea and to see our troops brought home. The time will come when we in this House will be ashamed of sending our men there.

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he thinks it worth while to uphold the principle of collective security, and what value he places on that?

The Deputy-Chairman: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not answer. It would not be in order.

Mr. Hughes: I could answer very effectively. However, I want to say that if Korea is to be made a hell on earth, and if there is to be misery for millions of people in Korea, and if that is collective security, then it is time we had a new foreign policy.

Mr. Nabarro: Let the hon. Gentleman start it.

Mr. Hughes: Given the opportunity, I would.

Brigadier Clarke: Not many people would follow the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hughes: I speak for a rising opinion in this country. However, I am not going to argue with a military Communist like the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He obviously objects to being called a military Communist, but he has been a military Communist for very many years, and does not know it.

Brigadier Clarke: On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman has twice referred to me as a military Communist, and he has referred to me as a military Communist before. I am not a Communist, and I should like it publicly known that I am not.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Hughes: I do not want to argue about this; I think it is a compliment to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. After all, Communists are very often intelligent people, and I am not sure that I am not complimenting the hon. and gallant Gentleman by calling him a Communist. He has been employed by the State for a long time; he has been ordered about for many years; and I do not understand why he objects to being called a military Communist.
However, the sum total of this is that we are increasing the total Estimates for the Army to £390 million, and this has got to come from the people of this country. It has to be found by reducing the standard of life of the people, and sooner or later they will have to foot the bill. This will bring them down to poverty level, even if we do not have war.

Brigadier Thorp: There are only two or three small points I want to make. First I want to refute the statement that has been made by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes)—which is, I think, completely libellous—that our troops in Korea are so unpatriotic that, if given the choice, they would come home tomorrow. That must not go out from this House.
There are one or two questions I want to put to the Under-Secretary of State for War. One is the question of the actual transport to Korea. I believe the figure of the cost was £3 million. I wonder if the hon. Gentleman would explain that a little more, because it seems to have given his hon. Friend the Member for

South Ayrshire a slightly wrong impression. I can hardly believe that moving less than two brigades, one from here and one from Hong Kong, to Korea would have cost £3 million. I know that that is not true, and I know that when the facts are given they will explain that cost, but as the hon. Member for South Ayrshire seems to be completely taken in by that, and as his impression is wrong, I think it worth while that this should be explained.
The other small point I have to raise is the question of the amount of money to be found for paying bills rather more quickly than had been anticipated. I am very glad that this has happened, but could it not have been estimated that these bills would become due, and what is the reason for the sudden or increasing production that has made the payment of these bills come in so much quicker than had been expected?

Mr. Heathcoat Amory: It will be clear, I think, that we on this side of the Committee are looking at the Supplementary Estimates with a very kindly eye. In fact, I think, it is true to say that the items that cause us most concern are, in the main, those that show a decrease. I realise, of course, that that is an attitude not without its dangers, and that it is an attitude which ought not to become a habit for the future. There are just one or two points I should like to raise.
9.30 p.m.
The first is on Vote 1, D, the pay and allowances for Colonial troops. I realise that the main part of the expenditure on the Colonial Forces falls on Colonial funds, but, to those who hoped that there would be a growth in the strength of the Colonial Forces, this item here looks a little disappointing. I take it that the decrease in Vote 2, C—"Territorial Army works buildings and lands"—is due not to any contraction in the programme, but to the fact that it has not been possible to carry out the work as fast as was hoped.

Mr. M. Stewart: Mr. M. Stewart indicated assent.

Mr. Amory: Perhaps the most disappointing thing about these Supplementary Estimates is the failure to record progress in the policy of civilisation. In fact, it seems to have gone back a bit.


I know the difficulties, and I imagine one of the causes is lack of accommodation in the right place. I hope that the Under-Secretary will take note of what my hon. Friends have already said, and will do everything possible to cater for and to interest these older ex-Service men. I particularly hope that the vacancies and where they exist will be brought to the attention of those men whose time is almost expired and who will soon be back in civilian life.
I think we were all glad to hear what the Under-Secretary said about the stores, and that a substantial part of the extra expense is due to stocking up. I hope that is so in regard to the very big percentage increase in the expenditure on clothing and clothing allowances. I expect it is. Finally, although I realise it is only approximate, I think that the approximate allocation of the expenditure given on page 6 is most useful and informative.

Mr. Rankin: I should like, very shortly, to raise one point on movements, Vote 5, for my own information, and, I trust, for the information of others who, like me may possess very little information about military affairs. Vote 5A refers to "Inland and coastwise conveyance of troops and animals," and Vote 5C tells us the cost of the conveyance of troops and animals by sea and by air instead of sea. I should like to know a little more about the animals. I am not referring only to those animals who move about on two feet, but also to those who move about on four feet. I have heard a suggestion that some of these animals may be regimental pets. Are these animals being conveyed from this country to Korea? Are they being conveyed by air? Does "travelling allowances and expenses" include animals?
This matter seems to be put vaguely in the Estimates. I wonder whether my hon. Friend could inform me how many animals are involved? I had come to the conclusion that warfare was now so highly mechanised that at least the four-footed animals had been excluded altogether from participation, and I was hoping that ultimately we would mechanise warfare so highly as to exclude the troops from it altogether. I wonder

whether my hon. Friend could enlighten me on that.

Colonel Clarke: My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Amory) asked whether the reduction in Vote 2 C—"Territorial Army works buildings and lands" was due to lack of opportunity for carrying out the plans rather than to a reduction in the plans themselves. I gathered from the Under-Secretary, who nodded assent, that that was the case. I regret that it is not possible to carry out these plans as originally intended. At present, it is very important not to let the Territorial Army think they are neglected in favour of new formations. At the beginning of both the last war and the 1914–18 war, that happened. When I joined the Territorial Army, in 1914, it was definitely prejudiced in favour of Kitchener's Army. During the last war, the Territorial Army was doubled at almost a moment's notice and it had an almost impossible task thrust upon it, but it managed to get away with it. I feel that it is most important to let these volunteers, who, without being specially called on are giving their services and getting themselves prepared, feel that they are not being passed over in favour of new formations.
I know that there is a feeling in the Territorial Army even now about the Z reservists. Although they are glad to have them, they fear that their own friends will be sacrificed in favour of the Z reservists and they may have to do fatigues and so on in order that the Z reservists may have more opportunity to train. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will say something to dispel that idea which is prevalent today among some of the rank and file. I think that we ought not to give the impression that the Territorial Army is not receiving the attention which it used to receive and which it should receive.

Brigadier Clarke: On Vote 4—Civilians at Pay and Record Offices—I have had a considerable amount of correspondence with the Under-Secretary concerning men leaving the Service and failing to get their pensions until many months later. I am glad to see that there is an increase of £110,000 under this head, and I hope now that the excuse that men must wait because of shortage of personnel at the pay and record offices will not be made in the future.
What I cannot understand is the decrease under the Subheads K, L and M—civilians at R.A.O.C. and R.E.M.E. establishments and civilian staff for works, engineer and lands services. With the rearmament programme, I can well imagine that the civilians in these establishments will have increased. One might say that this is a matter of full employment, but that is not strictly accurate, as I have men in my own constituency rejoining, and I know of a similar situation in other constituencies. There is a saving of £753,000 at R.A.O.C. establishments at a time when we are having a rearmament programme, and it is not sensible to make these men rejoin one day, put them on the unemployed list and ask them to come back in six months' time to serve their country as civilians. One would imagine that a considerable amount of armament stores are now being repaired. Why are we saving £440,000 on civilians working in R.E.M.E. workshops?
Under Subhead M—civilian staff for works, engineer and lands services—I imagine that they are the people who paint houses, repair and decorate barracks and quarters. My own officers' quarters had all its windows and doors replaced because they had not been painted for 10 years, and they fell out. It is a very short-term policy to replace doors and windows which have fallen out from lack of paint. I suggest that some of that £564,000 might be well spent by allowing people to repaint barracks and officers' and men's quarters.

Mr. Hoy: I wish to raise a point relating to the item which deals with the despatch of troops to Korea. During the last war one of the main complaints made by the ordinary soldier was about the appalling conditions under which he was compelled to travel. In my own experience I remember having to spend nearly three months on the boat which took us to the Middle East. It was an experience which I hope will not be repeated in this campaign. The provisions for the other men could only be described in one word—vile. Only today I had a letter from a constituent who was in the Army at the same time as myself. He raised this very point, that the one thing which frightened most people was that they might have to face up to those appalling conditions under which they

were compelled to travel with practically no facilities.
So I hope that included in this item is an allowance to provide better conditions for the men we are sending to the Korean front. They are entitled to get the best we can give them, and I hope we shall not repeat the mistakes we made in the last war. I hope also that when the Under-Secretary replies, he will be able to give us an assurance that better conditions are being provided for the other ranks Who have to travel in these boats.

Mr. M. Stewart: I hope I may, without disrespect, remind the Committee that this is a Supplementary Estimate we are debating and not, as may have appeared from listening to the debate, the Army Estimates themselves. I hope the Committee will forgive me, therefore, if I do not pursue fully the many points raised in this extremely interesting debate.
With regard to Vote 2, it is correct that the decrease there is not due to any change of plans but to a difficulty in fulfilling in the physical sense the plans we have made. I do not think there is any justification for any fear in the Territorial Army that in the pressure of new tasks their needs are being neglected. Indeed, in the past year or so, it has been remarkable what progress has been made in the re-organisation of Territorial units and in the provision for them of proper headquarters accommodation. I think the re-organisation which has been fairly recently carried out in the Territorial Army has been cordially accepted, and they are now ready to go ahead in their new rôle as a force composed both of volunteers and of National Service men.
On Vote 2, the item where there is the biggest proportionate reduction is the Supplementary Reserve. There it must be confessed we were over-optimistic in what we hoped to get. It is still at a comparatively early stage, and it did not prove possible to get the response for which we had hoped originally.
If I may say a word on Vote 4, concerning civilians, the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke) tended to speak as if these decreases were savings deliberately achieved by a decision to spend less than we had been spending. That, of course, is not the nature of the savings described in the Supplementary Estimates. This is simply money that has not been spent


because we were not able to find the channels in which to spend it. It is a comparison not with what has been spent in the same time in the past, but with what it was intended and hoped to spend at the beginning of the financial year. Some of the comments made on this subject of civilians tended to neglect that point.
9.45 p.m.
With regard to the employment of ex-soldiers, I must mention that I never visit an Army unit without finding among those who are doing work of this kind men with long records of service. I think hon. Members are aware that often the problem is that in one area the supply of people qualified and able and willing to do this work may exceed the demand. There may be a crying need for them in another area, but human beings are not as mobile as that.
I shall, however, certainly look with very great sympathy into the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head), because it is important that we should not neglect any possible source of getting men to do this type of work. The ex-soldier is particularly suitable for it. I doubt, however, whether the prospects of employment for Regular soldiers leaving the Army have ever been as satisfactory as they are today, both as a result of the general employment situation and as a result of the particular measures taken by the Government to ensure that employment will be available, not only for ex-Regular soldiers, but also for ex-Regular sailors and airmen.
A great deal was said about Vote 5. It was suggested that we might not have to spend so much on movements if the whole organisation of the Army were different and if we had followed earlier the advice of the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton. I listened with great interest to a reply to that by one of my hon. Friends. Hon. Members opposite now say that they were always demanding increased pay for the Services, but their fight for that objective was a fight waged with one hand tied behind their backs by the promises of reduced taxation which their party was making at the same time.
I cannot give the figure, for which I was asked, of the number of troops in the pipeline in transit at any one time. It is certainly higher than we should wish

it to be, but I think hon. Members will realise that, quite apart from the organisation of the Army itself and the very nature of the task it has to perform today, the fact that we cannot know from month to month what new requirement may be made, or what present requirement may come to an end, has in recent years made the problem of movements a burden.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) asked about the movements of animals. There are still parts of the world where there is severe limitation on what can be done by mechanised transport and where the horse, and, still more, the mule, have a part to play in military operations. There is also the excellent service rendered by dogs in guarding valuable stores. I could introduce my hon. Friend to some of the dogs who do this work, but he would be well advised to take careful precautions should he meet them.
On the matter of movements, my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) suggested that it was important that we should not require men to endure the conditions of transport which many of them had to endure and which, knowing the necessity, they were cheerfully prepared to face in time of war. We have had a number of inquiries and some complaints recently about conditions in troopships, but I am glad to say that on investigation I have invariably found that those complaints referred only to the most minor and trivial matters which could be, and usually were, quickly put right during the voyage. I shall always be glad to get any information from hon. Members on this subject, but my belief is that transport conditions today are reasonable.
I have a very vivid recollection of a journey I made in a troopship during the war, when the accommodation which fell to my lot was some 12 square feet underneath a table on the mess deck. I cannot too much congratulate myself that I decided to transfer from beneath the table to the top of the table the night before the sea was particularly heavy and poured down the steps and all over the floor of the deck.
Questions were asked regarding Vote 7. It is not possible for me to allocate the increased prices to particular items. I thought that the Committee would notice


with pleasure the comparatively small proportion which this item takes up of the whole of the increase under this head.
Questions were asked about lodging allowance and local overseas allowance. There have not been any reductions in the rates of London and lodging allowances. In regard to overseas allowance we have had increased expenditure through increases of rates in a great many areas, which are of course usually retrospective in effect to a date considerably in the past. In regard to Vote 8 and married quarters almost the entire expenditure on married quarters at home now falls into Vote 11. The increase here is not more than one must expect in the uncertainty of estimating a total vote of this kind in a field where the future is so difficult to predict as to what one can achieve in works, construction and maintenance.
A question was asked whether the £3 million really could be the figure for despatching troops to Korea. If we consider not only the initial despatch but the further despatch of stores and reinforcements ever since, the figure is not very far from being correct. I believe that covers nearly all the points raised, and I trust that the Committee will be willing to approve the Estimate.

Brigadier Head: I think we ought to thank the Under-Secretary for the very full answer he has given to our questions. Many hon. Members would be worried by his underlining of the shortage of the Supplementary Reserve which provided a very important specialist unit for the Army. I hope steps will be taken to bring them up to strength in the future because without them it only means that more technicians of the Z Class Reservists will be called away from their occupations.
Someone spoke of the old soldier being employed as a civilian and the Under-Secretary said that never have conditions been brighter and better for the man finishing his service. Why does he not do what we have been saying for years should be done, guarantee employment for the old soldier? Recruiting would go up at once; that would help recruiting more than anything else. He now has a new Secretary of State and is an old soldier himself, so he may be able to do something about this.
There was a tang of the hoardings, I thought, when the Under-Secretary said that we kept on asking for the pay of the Regular Forces to be put up yet had one arm tied behind our backs—[HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear."] Wait a minute before saying "Hear, hear." What we said, and we said it throughout—I can remember these words very well—was, "If you will spend a little more on the Regular element and take a chance you will put up Regular recruiting and stop the flow out of the Regular element. Then as a result you can give back to the Treasury a reduction in the National Service intake which will more than repay it." [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is true; it is an absolute fact. Hon. Members may mock, but it is a fact.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Mathers): This point does not arise under the Supplementary Estimate.

Brigadier Head: I am sorry, Mr. Mathers, I was led into the wilderness by the Under-Secretary, and I must apologise. There were questions about animals in aircraft. I do not know what the correct answer is, but I do know that the Royal Air Force are referred to by the rude term of "Pongos," and perhaps when reference is made to animals in aircraft, aircrews are meant.

Resolved
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £20,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Army Services for the year.

AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1950–51

VOTE A. ADDITIONAL NUMBER FOR AIR FORCE SERVICE

Motion made, and Question proposed:
That an additional number of officers, airmen and airwomen, not exceeding 28,000, all ranks, be maintained for Air Force Service, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Crawley): You have only so far mentioned Vote A, Mr. Mathers. Perhaps I might say a little in explanation


of the other Votes. The main reasons for the increases here are plain from the document. First, under Vote A, the numbers of men and women in the Service have increased by 28,000, and as will be seen from Vote 1 there are further increases as a result of the increased pay. This again is reflected—

The Temporary Chairman: We must dispose of Vote A before we proceed to the other Votes.

Mr. Crawley: In that case I can say nothing further on Vote A.

Sir Herbert Williams: The Under-Secretary said that this increase had come about because of the increase in the number of men and women in the Service. I may be wrong, but I can seen no reference in this document to the number of men. Can the Under-Secretary tell me where I can find it?

Mr. Crawley: On Vote A, where it is stated that the number of men and women is up by 28,000.

Sir H. Williams: Is it in this document?

Mr. Crawley: We are considering Vote A, which was laid before the House on 1st. December, 1950, and it states that there is an additional number in the Service of 28,000. We have also to consider the other Supplementary Estimates under Votes 1 to 11.

Air Commodore Harvey: I am not clear whether we are dealing with the Vote to which the Under-Secretary has referred or the Supplementary Estimates for £10 million.

The Temporary Chairman: We are dealing only with the Question I put to the Committee. That is Vote A, which deals with personnel.

AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1950–51

Motion made, and Question proposed:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10 million, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Air Services for the year.

SCHEDULE



—
Sums not exceeding



Supply Grants
Appropriations in Aid


Vote.
£
£


1.
Pay, &amp;c., of the Air Force

7,275,000
240,000


2.
Reserve and Auxiliary Services.
Cr.
250,000
—


3.
Air Ministry

65,000
—


4.
Civilians at Out-stations

520,000
10,000


5.
Movements
Cr.
450,000
*-50,000


6.
Supplies

2,300,000
80,000


7.
Aircraft and Stores

2,000,000
*-3,500,000


8.
Works and Lands
Cr.
1,200,000
*-800,000


9.
Miscellaneous Effective Services

150,000
*-310,000


10.
Non-effective Services
Cr.
410,000
300,000


11.
Additional Married Quarters

—
*-700,000



TOTAL, Air (Supplementary) 1950–51 £

10,000,000
*-5,000,000


* Deficit.

Mr. Crawley: I am sorry, Mr Mathers, if I was out of order in referring to these Estimates when you were putting the Question on Vote A. A large part of the increases in this £10 million is due to the increase of 28,000 men and women to which Vote A related. The major part of the rest of the increase is due to the increased pay and allowances about which the Committee already knows. The numbers are again reflected in Vote 6, in increased food and rations. I should like to refer to one point in Vote 6, namely that under the head of "Liquid fuel" we have laid in a good many extra stocks which account for an increase of £1 million.
The only other major reason for these increases is that we have received less from "Appropriations in aid" than we had expected, due mainly to the fact that we have curtailed sales of aircraft and spare parts abroad. Therefore, we now need a further sum to cover that deficiency. For those two reasons I ask the House to agree to the grant of this £10 million. I shall do my best to answer any questions.

Air Commodore Harvey: The Under-Secretary of State for Air has beaten the Parliamentary Secretary to the


Admiralty by only about 45 seconds in asking for his £10 million. He might have followed the example of the Under-Secretary of State for War in giving us a rather more detailed explanation than we have received. I do not wish to prejudice future debates or to get out of order, but when Ministers come here and ask for £10 million—this is the very round figure; when tendering in business one has to express the sum down to shillings and pence—there are one or two questions to which we should like answers.
The first one is on Vote 1, for pay. The Government are asking for an additional £7¼ million. At the risk of being taken up by hon. Gentlemen opposite, I will say, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) said, that had this money been spent three or four years ago, when the Opposition were pressing for it, there would have been more Regular personnel in the Air Force today.
However, it is Vote 2 with which I am really concerned. That Vote covers all the Reserves—the Royal Air Force Reserve, the Volunteer Reserve, Auxiliary Air Force, grants to the Territorial Associations, Air Training Corps, Combined Cadet Force and Royal Observer Corps. In not one case has the Minister asked for an additional Vote. It seems extraordinary that in 12 months there has been such neglect of Air Force. I cannot pursue that because I remember past occasions when I have been out of order when discussing similar matters.
On Vote 3 I believe I am in order in criticising the Air Ministry, which I may say I have done for many years past, both as a Regular officer and as a Member of Parliament. They are asking for another £65,000. It is extraordinary how the Air Ministry always get in first when extra money is required for personnel. I think we are entitled to ask how this money is being spent. Is it in building up a nucleus of staff for expansion or what is it?
10.0 p.m.
Vote 4, which covers civilians at outstations, shows an increase of wages and salaries of works staff of £622,000. May we be told how much of this is due to the rise in wages and salaries, or is due to a very much larger number of personnel

employed? I am impressed to see there is £982,000 required for meteorological, education and scientific purposes. Certainly, the money would be well spent in the meteorological department.
Vote 7 deals with aircraft and stores and the net increase asked for is £2 million. The appropriation-in-aid is £3½ million less than the original Estimate. When I first looked at this Vote I thought I should be out of order in dealing with this item, but as there is a net increase of £2 million I imagine that if I make my remarks I should be in order in discussing these few items. I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), would allow me to get on with my speech—I do not mind interruptions from the other side of the Committee—

Sir H. Williams: I was merely observing that the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend were in order, whether brief or not.

Air Commodore Harvey: I am glad to accept an assurance on that point.

Mr. Rankin: A Tory split.

Air Commodore Harvey: It is nothing like that. The split is on the other side of the Committee.
Under Subhead A, in Vote 7, where there is an increase required of £2 million, there is £3,030,000 less spent on aircraft. This is a fantastic sum. I am wondering what the Air Ministry has been doing for the past eight or nine months, knowing that the war in Korea started last July and that we are in urgent need of every bit of equipment we can get. It is no use the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) nodding his head—

Mr. Snow: I shall nod my head if I want to.

Air Commodore Harvey: I am putting it to the Minister that it is deplorable that this equipment has not, been purchased and I hope he will give an explanation. The same applies to radar. On clothing there is £1,230,000 extra required. Is the fantastic rise in wool prices reflected in the increased amount of money asked for? Can we have an assurance that, at any rate as far as the Air Ministry is concerned, the sale of surplus clothing and equipment is not taking place at the moment, but that the clothing and equipment is being retained in store?
We are not satisfied with the explanation on page 11 which accounts for the drop in the Appropriation in aid as being due to a reduction in the issues of aircraft. That is why there is less money coming in. As I see it, the Air Ministry has failed to deliver equipment to the Admiralty, the Ministry of Supply and to other Governments. The original figure was £17,500,000 and the actual amount which has come in is £15,988,000. Why has not this equipment been produced? Are the Admiralty and friendly Powers to go short? Perhaps we can have some explanation about that. If we are able to catch your eye next week, Major Milner, we will pursue any other points about the Air Force then.
I should like to say to the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that we in this Committee enjoy his speeches. We think that they are sincere. But I ask him to weigh his words carefully, because these speeches are printed. They go out all over the world and young men, volunteers and National Service men, who are doing a most difficult job in the Far East and in Malaya are not helped by them. It does not help them to get through their jobs when they read comments such as those which have been made here tonight.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: If the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) had particularised any remark that I might have made that would be resented by the soldiers out in Malaya, I would have been willing to withdraw it. The most I have said is that they want to come home. I am prepared to have a ballot to see if they do want to come home. I do not think that they would be insulted by anything that I have said. If I have said anything to upset the sensitivities of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, certainly I withdraw.
I want to ask a few questions about Vote 7. That is a Vote of £55 million for aircraft. I want to know if this includes the cost of aircraft for Malaya and the cost of operations there. I noticed recently that we have been employing Brigands in Malaya. I mean Brigands, the aircraft; not brigands, the men. I do not understand the Air Ministry giving such a name to aircraft. It creates a wrong impression in every country in the world, especially in the Far East, when we read that the Brigands have

been fighting the bandits. I should think that the aircraft should be named "Fletchers" or some other peaceable name like that.
Does Vote 7 include the operations in Malaya? I ask because recently I saw in the "Daily Telegraph," which is not normally critical of policy of this kind, that the air operations in Malaya had been very expensive. I have read competent articles not by people who agree with my point of view but by experts on air matters. They have asked whether we are justified in the expenditure in Malaya caused by bombing the jungle.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman cannot go into questions of policy. The only thing he can do is to ask in what respect the increase or, in this case, the decrease, arises.

Mr. Hughes: I understand that we are precluded from discussing whether the expenditure mentioned in this Vote includes expenditure in Malaya. As this is a Supplementary Estimate, and as aircraft are being used in Malaya, I concluded that we were discussing expenditure on aircraft in Malaya. I really do not understand what sort of policy is involved in this. This is a question of whether the expenditure has been justified.

The Chairman: I am sorry, but that question does not really arise. Regarding this particular item, there has been a decrease in the expenditure, as I understand it; that is to say, the whole of the Estimate provided for in the main Estimate has not been expended, and, in fact, less money has been spent than this House has provided for this particular item. No question, therefore, arises on this Supplementary Estimate, because the Air Ministry is not asking for any more on this Vote.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I think that even Erskine May would wonder at that. Here, we have been asked for £10 million extra. Truly, that is either right or wrong.

The Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I think he was dealing with Vote 7, which is a Vote on which, in respect of aircraft—which was the matter to which the hon. Gentleman was addressing himself—less money has been expended than was provided for in the


Estimate. The question which he put to the Minister is not in order on this particular Vote.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I accept your Ruling, Major Milner, though I am not so sure that Erskine May would. [Interruption.] I made no reflection on Sir Erskine May.
I want to turn away from that point to deal with what is obviously in order, and that is the final paragraph on page 11, which reads:
Expenditure on additional married quarters to be financed under the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Act, 1949, will be £700,000 less than provided for in the original Estimates, owing to shortages of labour and building materials.
I recall that the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) and I raised precisely this point when we were discussing the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Act, 1949, and I want to know what is going to be done about this paragraph. Here we have the statement made that the promise of the provisions of the Act of 1949, which were going to bring such boons to the married airman, has simply not been carried out, and it is said that this is due to the shortage of labour and building materials. When we debated this matter before, I pointed out that the Government could not redeem their promises because of the shortage of building labour and materials, and I therefore say that this paragraph is an ample justification of all that we said when we were discussing the Bill in 1949.

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: I wish to draw attention to Vote 7 and to ask the Under-Secretary if he would give us an explanation. On 14th September, we were told by the Minister of Defence:
There was £70 million in addition, the bulk of which will go in the provision of modern aircraft."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 14th September, 1950; Vol. 478, c. 1392.]
Not unreasonably, we expected to see an enormous jump having been made in that specific figure. This Vote shows that something is amiss, because we are now asked to approve expenditure which is little above the expenditure shown in the Estimates for 1949–50, which was just £50 million. I am wondering if the Under-Secretary, in replying, could tell us how long it is taking to get an order

through the Ministry of Supply, which acts for him in these matters. We have the impression on this side of the Committee that it is taking from three to six months to churn the paper out and place the contract. If that is so, it would be some explanation why these aircraft, which we have been told by Ministers on the Front Bench were being given high priority, are not, in fact, being delivered when they are required.
10.15 p.m.
The same, I think, will apply to Item C in Vote 7. You might call me to order, Major Milner, if I were to go further into that matter, so I will proceed hurriedly to Item E in Vote 7—"Mechanical transport vehicles and marine craft"—which have cost us £2.2 million more than was anticipated. I think the public feel some concern as to whether this increase is not due to lack of care and lack of maintenance of those vehicles. It has been reported in the House that the new type of vehicle is not likely to be delivered just yet, and, therefore, this increase must be for rehabilitation of old types of vehicles.
We wonder, when we see vehicles standing out in the open and being returned for rehabilitation in a most rusty condition, whether they have been given that care which public equipment deserves. We also wonder, when we come to Appropriations in aid, which is rising £3,500,000 less than was expected, whether that is due not only to throttling back in the sale of surplus equipment but to artificially low prices when this equipment is sold.
It was the Select Committee on Estimates who, when investigating the storage of Service equipment, recommended that some attention should be given to modern storage methods. We wonder whether all these items in this Vote are not to some extent affected by poor storage and poor supervision in the stores. I am not suggesting that the people on the job are slack, but there are large numbers of stores housing obsolete material. To quote a brief example, I know of a friend who came across a transmitter, dating back to the First World War, which was in the store and was keeping far more valuable and important equipment out.
Is it not time that the equipment was gone over with a fine-tooth comb, and


time that equipment, which dates back to very old wars, was thrown out to make room for valuable equipment which we now have and which has to be looked after?
May I also draw attention to a matter of some public concern—the continuous disposal of surplus equipment? We have heard it repeated again and again in the House—

The Chairman: Could the hon. Member tell we where that Item appears?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I understand that "Appropriations in aid" mean the disposal of equipment by the Ministry of Supply on behalf of the Air Ministry. We are told in the explanatory note that it concerns the disposal of aircraft and other stores, and we have been told that disposal has been slackened off. But it certainly must also include the disposal of sheets, blankets and all sorts of stores that are in the London shops today. Do you agree, Major Milner, that that is in order?

The Chairman: I do not think it is a question of the sale of stores in the ordinary sense. I see that the explanatory note says:
The reduced receipts are mainly due to a reduction in issues of aircraft and stores on repayment. …
The hon. Member certainly cannot put it down to surplus sales. If I am not mistaken, that does not refer to the ordinary sale of stores by the Ministry of Supply, and so on.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I have looked through this most carefully and consulted the original Estimates. I cannot see any other place where the sale of stores can possibly be put, except in Item Z of Vote 7. In any case, Major Milner, you have been kind enough to allow me to make my point, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will look into the matter, because the public are very concerned over the thought that the equipment is not being looked after in a proper manner and is being sold when we think it might be badly needed in the months to come.

Mr. Rankin: I want, very briefly, to look at these revised Estimates of £51,750,000. I think we ought to be interested not merely in the

sum itself and the purpose it is serving, but in where this money is going. This is money raised from the taxpayers and we notice that it is going into the hands of one of the most powerful monopolies in Britain today. It is going to that small band of firms who dominate the aircraft industry, consisting of not more than five firms under the name of the British Society of Aircraft Constructors. By and large, that is the organisation to which this money is going, and it is reappearing in the public Press in the form of dividends which, over the last year or so, have ranged from 17½ per cent. to—

The Chairman: Whether the hon. Member is right in what he is saying or not I do not know, but clearly that is not a matter for consideration on this Supplementary Estimate. Expenditure of that sort would, I imagine, be a question for the Ministry of Supply in any event.

Mr. Rankin: When we sanctioned the spending of £30 million and propose to agree to the spending of another £10 million without blinking an eye-lid, I think we should look at where the money is going. We find difficulty in giving something to the old age pensioners and yet we find no difficulty in giving money to organisations such as those which compose the aircraft industry today. It is material at this point to direct the attention of my colleagues on the Front Bench to the fact that here is profit in war.

The Chairman: Order. These observations are quite out of order. We cannot discuss tonight the question of policy, or whether it is desirable to have this work done by private enterprise or public enterprise, or anything of that sort. These questions of policy are quite out of order.

Mr. Rankin: I am not getting at private enterprise.

The Chairman: I would be grateful to the hon. Member if he would get at the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Rankin: My point was that this decrease of £3 million might have been largely improved upon if we had taken this industry out of private hands.

Sir Herbert Williams: I should like to follow, very briefly, the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing) with regard to the disposal of stores. One looks at Vote 6, item Z; no, Item G; no, I am sorry, Item Z. [HON. MEMBERS: "Make your mind up."] All right, we all make a slip sometime. One finds that the appropriations in aid show a decrease of £80,000. I think that £80,000 incorporates the kind of materials that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North, had in mind. Apart from that, I think we ought to have a more adequate explanation than that given on page 11, where it says:
Appropriations in aid of Votes 7 and 8 are now expected to be £3,500,000 and £800,000 respectively, less than allowed for in the original Estimates.
Later on it says:
The reduced receipts are mainly due to a reduction in issues of aircraft …
I presume that means the reduced sales of aircraft. If so, to whom? I think we ought to be told. On page 10 there is a total net Supplementary Estimate of £10,000,000. One half is represented by a net increase in total gross expenditure, and the other half by a net decrease in total appropriations in aid.
They represent half the bill. The only explanation we get, signed by one Privy Councillor who is also a King's counsel, and nine other distinguished people, consists of a few words which are quite unintelligible and which I imagine were intended to he unintelligible. We do not know why a change of £5 million has taken place. It is a very large sum of money. The right hon. Gentleman and I could do lots of things with £5 million and here we are asked to give our approval to a change of £5 million without any adequate explanation.
With regard to the increase of £5 million, we have page after page of summarised information, but there is very little information indeed about this other half, and we ought to be told a little more than the words which appear in the paragraph to which I have already referred and in the paragraph above it. We are entitled to an adequate explanation of why the right hon. Gentleman is asking for £5 million more, not for the purpose of increasing the defences of this country but because he has not done so

well in his junk shop as he thought he would do. That may be the explanation, although I admit it may be a very rude thing to call
a reduction in issues of aircraft and stores on repayment.
The Government ought to tell this Committee, and through this Committee the nation at large, a little more about how they are wasting our money.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: I shall confine my remarks to Vote 7. I must say that this Vote fills me with consternation. It seems to be nothing more nor less than a pointer to the direction in which the Air Ministry is spending our money on such a big scale. Items D to K have all been increased. Item E has been bumped up by £2 million odd, largely due, no doubt, to the inadequate storage and maintenance of vehicles which have been left over from the war and have been allowed to rust out in the weather. If that is not so, what has happened?
Going down to Item J—clothing and clothing allowances—there is an extremely sharp stepping up of clothing allowances to the tune of approximately £1¼ million. Why should this be taking place when I for one have had letters from constituents, one of whom has said that he was going around facing the climatic conditions outside and the conditions imposed by the Ministry of Fuel and Power indoors, in a pair of very fine fleece underpants trimmed with silk which had been obtained for a silly sum of money from a Government surplus stores and derived from the Royal Air Force stores? Why should we be spending all this extra money for clothing when clothing has been thrown away at silly prices?
We have a series of very large increases in spending in all the non-essential branches of the Royal Air Force while the essential parts such as aeroplanes are underspent. We have here once again the story of the tail wagging the dog, because with all this spending in nonessential items we find that aircraft, armaments, radar and things of that sort are the least considered items of the lot. That shows the measure of the maladministration which I seem to see in the Royal Air Force today.

Mr. Carmichael: I want to ask a question on Vote 7. I should like a more detailed explanation about the reduction of some £3 million on aircraft. We ought to know something about that sum of money.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Crawley: I understood, Major Milner, that your predecessor's Ruling was that decreases in the Estimates are not allowed to be discussed.

Mr. Carmichael: Obviously we cannot discuss increases without discussing decreases. From the very fact it is in the Supplementary Estimates, surely we are in order to discuss it.

The Chairman: The position is that hon. Members may ask the particular Service on which a reduction has been made, but they are not entitled to go into the policy of the Service in respect of which the saving has been made. Hon. Members may, however, ask in what respect or in what Service the saving has been made.

Mr. Carmichael: That is precisely what I have been doing. With other hon. Members, I think it would be wrong to discuss the policy of the Estimates, but surely the Under-Secretary is not going to hide behind the excuse he made, that because this is a decrease we dare not ask any questions.
We are dealing here with Estimates for aircraft that have gone down £3,000,000 and I think we are entitled to ask questions. I am no expert about the air, but I gather that aircraft are the most important part of the whole thing. I understand that radar and the equipment connected with it is an extremely vital part of flying these aircraft. Yet there is a saving of almost £2,000,000 on that. Almost £5,000,000 is being saved on these two items alone. Surely we are entitled to have some information, some greater detail, of why we are saving money in this very important period in the history of the Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about tomorrow?"] I am dealing with tonight; never mind about tomorrow. I have not the slightest doubt about tomorrow.
Turning to Vote A, on page 11, I note that under the heading of "New Works," in the last paragraph, the expenditure on additional married quarters will be

£700,000 less than provided. I remember the discussion we had on this and the very strong evidence that was then submitted that we should require every penny in order to improve married quarters for the Forces. Everybody admitted they were shockingly bad and that their number should be increased. Why is it necessary to have these reductions on these important items?

The Chairman: The hon. Member is not in order in asking that, if the question is one of policy. The only answer he can receive is that in fact these amounts have not been expended.

Mr. Carmichael: I know it is wrong to start debating with the Chair, but it is not good enough to come to the Committee and say, "We did not spend these amounts." Surely if the Department bring forward Estimates, we are entitled to ask the simple question: Why have you not spent these amounts? Is the efficiency of the service being restricted? If it is, why are the items included in this Supplementary Estimate? That is all I am asking. If the item was not in the Estimate we could not ask any questions about it, but it is put in and we are required to accept it. Surely if we have to accept it we are entitled to ask the question. Why it is that the Government come forward asking for a Supplementary Estimate for £10 million, but in actual fact they are asking for a much higher figure than is put in the Estimate?
What is the explanation for not spending £2,900,000? That is not policy. Policy has been decided. I am not questioning policy: I am wanting to know why it has not been spent. That is extremely important. What is the good of spending an entire night discussing the extension of married quarters and granting permission to the Government to do that when they do not do it? When we ask the simple question why did not they do it, we are supposed to be out of order. Well, I have got that fairly well across, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air will tell us now why it had been possible to save the millions we have saved in this Supplementary Estimate.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I realise how delicate the ground is when speaking about decreases, but I think if the Under-Secre-


tary had been a little more explanatory on these points all these questions would not have arisen. They are big points, as the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael), has made clear. The fact is that the people of this country want to know where their money is going. One hon. Member who spoke a short time ago wondered where it was going. It is going into the aircraft industry, for if aircraft are required that is where it must go. But the people of the country want to know where this vast expenditure is going because the total extra which the Government are asking for—and it is always extra that Governments ask for—is £10 million. Yet when we come to the most important items, which are those the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton mentioned, in Vote 7 there is a decrease.
If the Under-Secretary had given a little more information all these questions might have been saved. I hope he will now make the points clear. The country wants to know, if we are going to spend all this vast amount of money, whether it is producing fighting units in whichever of the three Services it might be spent, and in this case it is the Air Service. We are entitled to know in the interests of our constituencies where the money is going, whether the decreases should have been made and whether the increases could have been avoided.

The Chairman: The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot ask questions which deal with policy and which the Under-Secretary cannot answer.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) referred to powerful monopolies. There is one powerful monopoly I want to see and that is the monopoly of the Royal Air Force over any sky in which it may fly. With regard to the Estimates, I want to draw attention to Vote 7—Aircraft Stores, Instruments and Photographic Equipment. There is an increase there of £270,000. I hope that this sum is being used to perfect the latest type of photographic gear. During the last war there was considerable difficulty in getting certain items of photographic equipment perfected so that air reconnaissance could be adequately done. Without photographic reconnaissance 80 per cent. of our intelligence cannot be done over enemy territory. This is going

to be vitally important. I trust that these matters in the Air Force and the performance of the aircraft of this type are not going to be neglected. The aircraft have to be the fastest in the service.

Mr. Snow: I should like to address myself for a few minutes to a rather controversial item, the decrease in expenditure on the Air Force, and in particular to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey). I understand that the hon. Member is an expert at testing flower seeds. I might tell him that I have myself produced a very fine variety of Pomea Rubro Curulea—

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the hon. Member explain which Vote that comes under?

Mr. Snow: I merely wanted to point out to the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield that his remarks about the lack of expenditure on aircraft do not fit in today with the ordinary profession of public accounting, because expenditure in a Government Department is carried out on the basis of orders placed a long time before. If orders have been placed within the last six or 12 months, these will not be paid for a considerable period and, as and when production comes forward. I thought that the hon. and gallant Member ought to be put right on that matter—

Air Commodore Harvey: rose—

Mr. Snow: May I just finish? I thought the hon. Member ought to be put right on that matter, because it looks bad in the Press, I think, if it appears that in this vital and tense time of world affairs we are not spending money which Parliament has provided because of some faulty administration. That is not so. Orders placed recently will be paid for in the ordinary course of events, which may be in a year or so.

Air Commodore Harvey: When the Estimates were introduced last year the Minister estimated that the money would be spent. It is simple planning that the money should be spent. If £3 million has not been spent there is something wrong in the organisation. The hon. Member cannot get away with it like that.

Mr. Snow: I am not trying to get away with it. The matter must be put in its right perspective. I think the hon. Member ought to know that one may have a type of aircraft coming forward and, at a certain point, a better aircraft is designed. It is decided to put that better aircraft into production. Therefore it is possible to fulfil only a part of the original order. Hence the kind of reduction which appears in the Estimate.

Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: I should like to support the remarks of the hon. Member for Inverness (Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton). We have perhaps a special interest in this question of photographic reconnaissance. Actually I think it is unique, for he and I were pilot and navigator respectively of a Mosquito aircraft engaged on this work in World War Two. Photography was then a most important part of the whole Allied operations. For a long time we had no forces on the Continent of Europe and were forced to fly over enemy occupied territory for vital information.
10.45 p.m.
Since that time aircraft, both defensive and offensive have improved in speed and range, and it is vitally important that the photography in planes we use today should be of the highest possible efficiency and, furthermore, that the photographic equipment used in them should be designed to operate at the greater speeds and greater heights at which jet planes operate today. The increase in Vote 7, Item D is only something of the order of a quarter of a million pounds, and that does not seem to my hon. Friends an adequate sum of money for this very vital service.

Squadron Leader Burden: I should like to join my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper) in referring to Subhead D of Vote 7. We all three have particular interest in the subject of photographic reconnaissance and I do not think that too much emphasis can be laid on the matter of this arm of the Air Service. It is not only a matter of providing modern high speed high altitude aircraft with modern photographic equipment capable of photographing at high speeds but we are con-

siderably concerned at the reduction of the Vote for aircraft, if there has been a reduction, in the amount set aside for providing not merely the fastest aircraft in our own Air Force for photographic reconnaissance, but the fastest aircraft in any air force against which we are likely to be engaged.

The Chairman: rose—

Squadron Leader Burden: I realise I am almost getting out of order—

The Chairman: This is a question of policy. This is a very restricted debate and it is restricted to items in which savings, if there are savings, have been made.

Squadron Leader Burden: May I say I hope that in the increase of £270,000 measures have been taken to increase the photographic interpretation centres, which are also vitally important, and that the photographic interpreters have the utmost advantage of scientific advancement in that field, and also that provision would be made for employing an adequate number of interpretation centres and an adequate number of highly skilled intelligence officers. That is vital to any military or naval engagements in which we may be called upon to participate in future.

Mr. Crawley: I always thought brevity was a merit in this House and I hoped that by following my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty in saying very little and offering to answer any questions so far as I could, I should have commended myself to the Opposition. But the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) accused me of not having explained the Supplementary Estimate properly. He might have saved himself a little of his own speech had he listened to what I said. One of his chief questions was about the drop in appropriations which I took particular care to explain. As he knows, or I am sure ought to know, the Air Ministry is not an issuing department for aircraft to the other services, except in a very few exceptional cases.
As I said, the drop to which he referred, £3,500,000, is almost entirely due to our curtailment of sending aircraft to foreign countries, aircraft in the main which are secondhand and which we have thrown up and which are not therefore of very


great value here, except as reserves. We have not sent them, but are keeping them as reserves.

Air Commodore Harvey: May I carry the point further? Is that the result of curtailment of jets sent to Egypt?

Mr. Crawley: No, because the Air Ministry does not send jets. They are sent direct by the manufacturer or the Ministry of Supply. As he knows, we do throw up a number of aircraft which have some life in them; it may be piston-engine aircraft which some countries want to buy. But we have been keeping even those aircraft as a reserve and they are not being sent abroad at the moment.
I think most of the other questions related to Vote 7, and the main question is, why are the estimates for aircraft themselves—the aircraft that we order—£3,000,000 down. One of the reasons is that some of them have cost less than was estimated. About one-third of that £3,000,000 is, therefore, grist to our mill and the other £2,000,000 is simply due to the fact that the estimate was too high.
When the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield or some other hon. Member, said it was a very simple matter when making an estimate to spend it all and have one's accounts balanced exactly at the end of the year, I should like to point out that even in quite a small business he would discover that that is not always so easy. As a matter of fact, this deficiency of £2,000,000 on this estimate is a good deal lower than it usually is. We do not feel dissatisfied at being as close as we were, and it represents a very small short-fall on estimates based on Ministry of Supply forecasts of the capacity of the industry, which never can be, in effect, very accurate.

Air Commodore Harvey: We on this side of the Committee would have been very much happier if the hon. Gentleman had come asking for more money for aircraft instead of other sundry equipment as outlined by his hon. Friend.

Mr. Crawley: The hon. and gallant Member is really getting confused there as was the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing). The additional orders placed under the accelerated

programme—and the Minister of Defence mentioned £70,000,000—cannot come into this year's figures. These orders will be paid for in the years to come. This year's Estimates are probably paying for orders made two or three years ago. At the beginning of the year, one estimates how much of these orders come into this year, and at the end one always finds that there is a difference because it is an estimate.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: When the hon. Gentleman says "cannot come in this year," surely it is correct to say that the Air Ministry, following through the Ministry of Supply, always gives progress payments on contract? I should have thought that some of these progress payments would have appeared in these Estimates.

Mr. Crawley: The hon. Member will find that a very large number of orders have been placed, but nothing has come into these Estimates.

Sir H. Williams: Why not separate the existing orders in view of the state of emergency which now exists?

Mr. Crawley: That is an entirely different matter and does not arise.

Sir H. Williams: Of course, it does.

Mr. Crawley: Regarding other smaller points raised, the hon. and gallant Member for Gosport and Fareham (Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett) spoke about the clothing which also comes into Vote 7, and he described it, I would ask the Committee to note, as a non-essential item. His own physique, I am sure, is very hardy but our Air Force needs clothing and we have many extra people to clothe, which is a simple explanation of the increase in the clothing estimate.
The hon. Member for Hendon, North, mentioned the increase in mechanical transport. There is a simple accounting explanation for a greater part of that. Of that £2,000,000-odd, £1,250,000 is due to the fact that we paid too little to this service last year and are now having to make up the difference. The odd £750,000 is due to the fact that refurbishing of transport has gone up in price, but it does not mean that the transport we are re-furbishing has been badly looked after.
In regard to this question and the question of sales of surplus stores, we have, in fact, gone through all our equipment with a tooth-comb and have been discarding the stuff which is completely obsolete or which is beginning to be deficient, because it is no use keeping equipment of that kind which might be faulty when it is wanted in an emergency. We also take the greatest trouble at sales to examine equipment, and we send down special officers to do this before the sales take place. Although to a layman, who is superficially looking at it, these garments and articles appear very useful, they are, in fact, obsolete or have a deficiency which we are not prepared to accept. On Vote 4 one or two questions were raised about the pay of civilians. It represents mainly higher wages and salaries and partly more civilians being employed.
Lastly—and I think I have already covered the main points of Vote 7—there is the question of housing which some of my hon. Friends on this side raised. The reason for the shortage, or the short-fall in the building programme, has been plainly set out: it is due to shortages of labour and materials. Nevertheless, I think the Air Ministry can claim, through its loans policy, that it has been really very successful in building a larger number of houses than most other single organisations have been able to. Four thousand are under construction now, and although we shall probably not be able to finish them quite as quickly as we had originally hoped, we do expect to do that with only a few months' delay. I think that is something we should be proud of rather than the reverse.

Mr. Rankin: Will my hon. Friend deal with one point in regard to this revised estimate of £51,750,000? How much of that is being spent in Scotland? Is it a fact that not a halfpenny of the money that is raised in Scotland is spent in Scotland?

The Chairman: We are not discussing the £51,700,000: that was discussed presumably on the main Estimate some months ago. We are not discussing that question at all.

Squadron Leader Burden: I should like to ask the Under-Secretary if he will refer to what has been done to equip photographic reconnaissance squadrons with modern equipment. Has anything been done in regard to that, because it is terribly important?

Mr. Crawley: That is dealt with in these Supplementary Estimates. The hon. and gallant Member has already referred to increases, and these Estimates do show that we are stepping up equipment in the reconnaissance squadrons. On the actual quality of the equipment, which is a measure of our scientific skill, I do not think I should like to go into great detail. Some of this equipment is very new. The hon. and gallant Member will soon be visiting some stations and we shall be glad to point it out to him so that he can form his own opinion. We are equipping the reconnaissance squadrons with the best available equip-men in this country.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: With regard to the storage of equipment the Under-Secretary assures us that equipment examined was not in good condition before being sent to be sold, but we are more concerned about the storage of future equipment. A lot of this will not be required for ten years. He said that in matters of rebuilding the R.A.F. was very restricted as regards new construction. If that is so, will he look at some methods of storage such as "cocooning" and "mothballing" developed in the U.S.A. which are very economical and which do not need high-quality buildings which he would not be in a position to supply now?

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Air Services for the year.

Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Resolved:
That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, the sum of £40,000,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Jay.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

COURTS-MARTIAL (APPEALS) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish a Courts-Martial Appeal Court and to provide for appeals thereto from courts-martial and certain naval disciplinary courts; to make provision with respect to the office of Judge Advocate General; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of remuneration of persons appointed by the Lord Chancellor to be judges of the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Court established by the said Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Court") and of officers and servants of the Court, of travelling and subsistence allowances of judges of the Court and of other expenses of the Court;
(b) of remuneration and travelling and subsistence allowances of special commissioners to whom questions are referred by the Court for inquiry and report and of persons appointed to act as assessors to the Court;
(c) of travelling and subsistence allowances of witnesses attending before the Court or examined in pursuance of an order of the Court;
(d) of salaries and travelling and subsistence allowances of the Judge Advocate of the Fleet, the Judge Advocate General and persons appointed under the said Act to assist the Judge Advocate General in the exercise and performance of his powers and duties;
(e) of any pension payable under the said Act to a person who has held the office of Judge Advocate General for a period of not less than fifteen years and of any increase attributable to any provision of the said Act in the sums which, under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1950, are payable out of moneys provided by Parliament; and
(f) of any expenses incurred under the said Act by the Admiralty or the Secretary of State; and

(2) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums which, under any provision of the said Act, are recovered from any person by the Admiralty or the Secretary of State.

HOSPITAL PATIENTS (STUDENTS' EXAMINATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]

11.2 p.m.

Mr. F. Longden: The subject I wish to raise has a very human appeal which, I hope, will reach the mind and heart of the Minister. Perhaps the best way to make the matter clear is to quote a question I put to the Minister of Health on 16th November last, and his reply. I asked:
It his attention has been called to the common practice, in teaching hospitals, for patients to be examined intimately by groups of students, often against the natural inclination of the patients; and if he will issue a general regulation to the effect that the consent of every patient must be obtained before an examination may be performed.
MR. BEVAN: I am not aware of any general dissatisfaction with the existing arrangements, or of any sufficient reason for suggesting they should be changed. My hon. Friend will realise that it is vital that medical students should have adequate clinical training."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1950; Vol. 480, c. 1868.]
I thought that reply was rather complacent for two reasons. First, everyone must know that clinical training of the best is necessary to our students, and, secondly, apparently no effort was made to find out the number of protests raised. Indeed, there are thousands of protests, but they are silent ones. The crux of this question can be seen in an intermediate phrase thrown in by the Minister in reply to a pretty rude supplementary question from the other side of the House:
… It has always been the case that in teaching hospitals medical students must be taught with the clinical material available, that material being human beings.
There is the rub—human beings. That is a rather different raw material from that in any other industry or profession.
I remember a specialist treating me some time ago, and he told me that the first thing he did was to understand his patient, not only in order to win his


mental co-operation but—and medical men must know what this means—because he believed that the blood stream itself was improved as a result. There are a few pretty coarse consultants and specialists—very few. Thank goodness the overwhelming number of these men and women, specialists, surgeons and general practitioners, are all that we should wish, but in a minority of cases they certainly are not.
Two cases come to me after the Question I put. One youngish man told me that the death of his mother was hastened as a result of the mental agony she suffered in the intimate examination of her body against her will, her desire, and her very make up. A spinster came to tell me, in great distress, that she had had haemorrhoids of an extreme kind. She was laid naked in the clinic and examined, and the consultant uttered words I would not like to utter in public. That hurt her very much, but what hurt her more was that when the consultant left the room the students were left behind and watched her while she dressed, sniggering.
That sort of thing ought to be stopped at the earliest possible moment. It does happen, no matter what people may say. I think that only by quoting the experiences to be found in a number of letters I have received can the best case be made, so I hope I may be forgiven for making these several quotations in so short a debate. A lady stated in one letter:
I know of several instances of young pregnant women who have been passed from the ante-natal clinic to the hospital clinic and have been pounced upon by as many as six young men who made very intimate examinations. … You can imagine the shock and the confused state of mind they emerge with from this ordeal, with more to come.
This from a gentleman:
My wife offered full permission for one student even to take active part at the birth, but refused a dozen spectators. She is a school teacher, so can hardly he thought irregular. … A group of students entered the labour ward, without escort or supervision, and commenced to examine mothers ad lib. My wife was sent home. … I respect my wife, and I expect others to do so.
I respect that man too, very much. A mother says:
I had experience concerning the disgraceful conduct of students with my daughter of 14 years of age suffering from cardiac trouble. I sent a detailed account to the Minister of Health.

Of course she got the usual reply, that unsympathetic, unknowing reply I got from the Minister, and she says:
I feel sure you are doing a great public service in pressing this matter in the House of Commons, and I sincerely wish you success in preventing the practice of students forcing patients to become victims, with no option.
No option. That is the issue of this debate, as I see it.
A lady suffering from heart trouble was made to undress. She did not see the necessity, but her private parts were mauled.
No such person should be experimented on or he subjected to such examination—like an operation—without conscious voluntary consent.
A lady writes:
Your remarks to the Minister of Health … regarding hospital patients will, I am sure, be greatly appreciated by the average citizen. I trust that you will receive sufficient support to enable you to bring this matter up again, and that eventually a measure of protection will be afforded to the unfortunate patients.
I have another letter from a lady who is, I think, very capable and highly intelligent. She says:
I have known many women who have been subjected to most embarrassing and humiliating experiences. … Whether she is 17 or 70, there is no thought for her acute mental anguish. I readily agree it is essential that medical students have every opportunity of getting a thorough training in all branches of their work, but surely it is only common decency for a patient to be consulted before being subjected to the ordeal of being watched by a group of students when an intimate examination of his or her body is being made. … It would be interesting to know the reaction of the Minister himself if surrounded by 12 young women students in like circumstances.
I hope to have my first child next year. The prospect of going into our local hospital and being surrounded by young students while being examined, or while my child is being born, is a constant nightmare to me. … I am having my child at home, although I know it would he infinitely better from the viewpoint of medical attention if I went to the hospital. … You will undoubtedly gain the gratitude of thousands of women—and men—who certainly do not share the Minister's opinion that it is in order for the medical profession to treat our bodies with no more sense of respect or regard to modesty than they would show to an animal.
As I have already said, I agree that most of the consultants are kindly and understanding in these respects. It is necessary that they should be, because their profession is positively unique. There are medical men I know personally who would not send patients to some


consultants they know, and I am certain there are medical men in this House who could say the same. That should never be. Students should not merely be professionally taught and guided; they should be controlled in their treatment of men and women—their material, as the Minister rightly says.
Among the letters I have had from medical men is one from a medical man who was highly respected in the Birmingham area before he left—and we lost much with his leaving. He wrote:
This is a most difficult problem, but I certainly think that in gynaecological clinics, even in teaching hospitals, individual patients should be asked if they are prepared to be examined. …
I agree, and I think most reasoning people will. Let the Minister, therefore, seek information and suggestions from this overwhelming number of first-class and honourable consultants in our country, in order that they may find some means of preventing their profession from being sullied by a few in this respect. Otherwise let those with grievances shout them out.

11.15 p.m.

Dr. Hill: As the hon. Member for Small Heath (Mr. Longden) was developing his case I wondered what his purpose was. It was not until his concluding remarks that he was good enough to suggest that this was a problem not too large in scope. I think he does a disservice if he seeks to give the impression that the brutal, inhuman treatment which he described was in any way characteristic—

Mr. Longden: I did not say that; just the opposite. I said the overwhelming number did the very opposite.

Dr. Hill: I recognise that the hon. Member in his concluding phrases sought to restrict the scope of his remarks, but for the bulk of his remarks he submitted a general criticism of a substantial problem. I want to put to the House three or four points very briefly. First, in all my experience of hospitals, and it is considerable, I have never seen or heard of such events, of unchaperoned examination of the kind he described. Secondly, the hon. Member must face, as everyone must face, the fact that if this country is to be happily served by efficient doctors, teaching on the diseased

human body, as on the normal human body, is absolutely essential. I hope he will agree with me.

Mr. Longden: I have agreed.

Dr. Hill: But some of the hon. Member's remarks might lead people to think that this is an undesirable form of teaching, an undesirable practice. Thirdly, I would say that the vast majority of patients are only too glad to co-operate in the purposes of teaching, and furthermore, if the hon. Member will forgive me for saying so, some positively enjoy it.

Mr. Longden: But the hon. Member knows very well that all I am asking is that that kind of examination should not happen without the consent of the patient.

Dr. Hill: As I understood the hon. Member as he developed his case, it was to go far beyond a mere question of the consent of patients, and he used lurid and misleading language as he went on to describe what was happening. So I would say to him, the vast majority of patients collaborate in this work. I agree with him that a minority find this too difficult to bear. I agree with him further that where such persons register an objection to be used for teaching, they are fully entitled to register that objection and fully entitled to have that objection observed.
I want to make the point that such incidents as he has described I find difficult to believe, though I am not casting doubt upon such statements as he made based on letters received by him. There are lurid imaginations that get busily at work in this and other fields. I have not heard of such cases as he has described and in my experience the teaching hospitals particularly, under the aegis of the sisters, are especially careful to secure the utmost privacy, delicacy and complete. chaperonage in the examination of women patients.
I rise, recognising that I am stealing a minute or two of the time of the Parliamentary Secretary, to agree with the main point which the hon. Member sought to make, that the individual should give consent for such work, but to make a most emphatic protest at the language with which he sought to prepare the, way to his final suggestion, for I believe it to be utterly misleading, derogatory to the great


teaching centres and almost completely unrelated to the facts of the daily experience in our teaching hospitals.

11.19 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I am grateful for the intervention of the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) in this debate, because there is no doubt that his experience in this matter is of importance in getting a proper bearing on the question. Even though my hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath (Mr. F. Longden) attempted to limit the language of his remarks, I feel that if the sort of examples he used were to go out from this House without any repudiation, they would inevitably create a wholly misleading impression and might endanger the value of some of the important teaching work going on.
I think that in this issue we have to face a certain clash of interests, if one likes to put it that way. It is obvious that from one point of view we are dealing with clinical material, but it is true that the clinical material is composed of human beings. We are, therefore, very anxious to ensure the most careful treatment for the patients; at the same time it is vital to provide every possible opportunity to help the training of students who go forward through the teaching hospitals, and who today may in some cases be receiving instruction outside the ordinary teaching hospitals.
There has been no change in the principles of training medical students or in the use of patients in the teaching hospitals to enable students to get the clinical experience they must have. We are dealing with a problem that we have had to face for a long period—ever since we evolved our present methods of clinical teaching. The only difference is that we have perhaps more students going for training than we have had in the past, and therefore there may be more problems arising at one time or another. I want to put this point to my hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath, that unless this principle of the clinical examination of patients by students is accepted, much of the training that potential doctors have to undergo would be valueless; and we would indeed, be endangering the public if we did not ensure that there were opportunities, not merely for general

examination, but also for detailed examination, of actual patients.
I am absolutely clear that it would be impracticable to get the consent of patients in advance. I would fully agree that where a patient has expressed unwillingness to agree to an examination by students, his objection should be dealt with sympathetically and understandingly; clearly there neither should nor could be any pressure used to enforce an examination against the wishes of a patient. We should at any time be most willing to investigate any cases put forward to us where it might be suggested that any such wrongful duress—and that is what it amounts to—had been used. But during the last year and a half, no more than three or four cases have been reported to us at the Ministry.
I admit that there may be many other cases where patients feel unhappy; I know that there are many patients who do not like this process. I understand that, and I am fully sympathetic with them. But the majority of patients appreciate the need for this procedure, although they may not personally like it. They may not care to have gaping students round about them—though some patients positively enjoy these things. Nevertheless, the great bulk of them realise how essential it is.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I think the hon. Gentleman said inadvertently that a substantial number of patients did not like being subject to teaching. I do not think he meant to say that. I think he meant to refer to a small minority.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I am suggesting that there may be more than those few cases who put complaints into writing; but I would say that even those, and they are not very many, realise the importance of what is going on. So I would say to my hon. Friend, and I would say to any others, that if there are patients who feel that they have been wrongfully used, they ought to put their complaints to the appropriate quarter, to the hospital itself, and, if necessary, to us at the Ministry. We shall certainly and willingly examine them carefully.
What I have found is that sometimes a complaint arises out of lack of accommodation and the consequent difficulty of getting sufficient privacy for the patients.


Sometimes this is caused by a great increase in the number of cases coming forward and the accommodation not being satisfactory and so giving rise to lack of proper accommodation. Lack of proper opportunity for privacy when dressing and undressing, and things of that kind, are connected with the question of examination by students. Complaints of that sort do occasionally come through, and we are trying to deal with them in the proper way by ensuring that more accommodation is made available.
But I am very anxious that in this House tonight we should do nothing to impede the vital teaching work which is being carried on throughout the country. I am anxious, too, that those vital, though, I admit, at times embarrassing examina-

ions which may be necessary, should go forward with the full co-operation of the patients whenever possible. Should a patient in a rare case feel that he or she cannot bear the examinations which are required, then I am sure we would all desire that their wishes should be respected; and I am convinced that in fact they are respected by the professional people concerned. I hope that if my hon. Friend has any particular individual cases in his mind which are not too far back in history, he will refer them to me so that I can examine them and see whether there is any basis of fact behind them worthy of further examination.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Eight Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.